News Feeds

 

Lizzie Suarez grew up in Miami and watched the city morph into what it is today: a billionaire’s playground. She works with Miami Workers Center, “as a place where people are finding community and finding answers to the questions of their lives.” She’s also a cultural organizer grappling to answer the question, what exactly is a cultural organizer?

 

The following is from our conversation on March 6th, 2026. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

~

Mark Chavez

What was life like growing up in Miami? 

Lizzie Suarez

I had a great experience growing up in Miami. I was fortunate enough to be involved in extracurricular activities, like sports, got into the arts outside of school and I had an experience of both being in public school and private school in Miami. As I got older, a lot of my experience I can see through a more political lens: the experiences I had with, you know, peers growing up. I was a teenager when Trayvon Martin was murdered and experiencing that as a kid and trying to make sense of the story. And then as I got older, witnessing uprisings and resistance across the United States, just following the news and being online. And so I would say it’s been a really eye-opening experience and a very unique experience. Miami is such a unique place compared to many parts of the United States, but I would also say I was like most kids when you get lost in childhood classmate drama and all that. 

MC

What has changed about Miami over your lifetime? 

LS

A lot has changed. Miami is a place that has always, since its founding, as the city of Miami proper and the region, a place that was created by Indigenous and Black people of the Caribbean for outsiders and for wealthy northerners. And so in that sense, not much has changed about Miami, but because the people who govern Miami have such a commitment to novelty, to newness, to the new next best shiny thing our city really changes, I would say, every five years almost. Every five years there’s a new influx of people, whether it be from New York or California, especially post pandemic. 

Now, most recently in the past few months, there’s been like six billionaires who have announced that they’re moving to Miami, one of them being Peter Thiel, moving Palantir here. And so, in the past six or seven years, a lot of my friends, people that I’ve known, have had to leave Miami due to rising cost of living. A lot of people in my circle that I’ve organized with or been in community with, many of them are not from here, but nonetheless, they have chosen to call this place home and chosen to help make it better. 

All that to say, although there’s new people, migration is just part of life. And so there’s all sorts of different people here, different nationalities, different states, but I think more and more, there’s just more concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands and working class people are feeling it the most. 

MC

Can you share how that ties into your work? How is Miami Workers Center borne out of, related to, responding to that increased disparity of wealth in the city. 

LS

I was actually just reading some notes and reflections from members from a convening that we had this past weekend. And the prompt was, who are we? When you think about us as an organization, who are we? 

One of our members put, “we are those who have been forgotten about, the disabled, working class people, people who can work, people who can’t work, people who are single parents with young kids, people who are navigating our complex immigration legal system.” 

And so I think about the organization, Miami Workers Center, as a place where people are finding community and finding answers to the questions of their lives. Can I afford to live here? Is this a safe place to live? Can I build roots here? How can I afford to live here? How can I find the resources I need to live a life of dignity?

And yeah… I think the organization is like a quest to answer the question, who was Miami for? We know, like I just shared, it has been a place for the rich, but it doesn’t have to be that way. Just as it was made, it can be unmade and made again. 

MC

That’s so beautiful. You all were involved in launching the first worker-owned cleaning business in Miami. Can you share, what is that? And in responding to that, also share a little bit about what is a cooperative and why are they so important? 

LS

The Miami Cleaning Cooperative is a new business, a new worker cooperative founded by members of the Miami Workers Center in collaboration with, and supported by, Neighborhood Housing Services of South Florida and Catalyst Miami. 

For the past about two to three years now, members of that cooperative have been part of an incubation process. So they first started with learning what a cooperative is. It’s a different kind of way of doing business, as opposed to standard business practices where there’s a CEO at the top and everyone under them doesn’t get to make the decisions that impact their lives, whether it be economically or just the way that the business is governed. They are making the same amount of money, and they have learned about cooperatives being a more collaborative, generative kind of economics where the work is shared, there’s equal say, or the workers who make the business run get to set up the structures that they feel are fair and also supportive of their business. 

The worker-owners are involved in making decisions about where the profit of the business is going towards, how much of it is put back into the business versus how much of it turns into salary or pay that workers get to take home. 

We’re so proud that they’re now in business and working and taking on clients. And this is especially important for this group of women. One being a multiracial group of women, Miami is a place that is very segregated still by class and therefore by race, especially along national lines. So you often don’t see images or representations of people who are Spanish speaking from Peru or Nicaragua working in collaboration with Haitian women. And that is what we’re seeing in this cooperative. 

It’s not only an example of how people from different places can work together when there’s a shared vision and shared respect for one another, but also as domestic workers in an industry that is very precarious, where workers are often working in private homes: there’s little to no regulations for these workers. They’re often mistreated and taken advantage of, both economically, but also personally, it’s horrible the levels of disrespect and violence that women often experience on the job. 

Being part of a worker cooperative, an organization that has their back in these situations, that they don’t have to deal with these challenges alone, is really important. And then another part of it also is the environmental impact. So part of their commitment as a cooperative is educating other workers, other domestic workers on what are the kind of products that workers should be using on the job that doesn’t harm their health. 

MC

This is an aside but I remember when I was younger talking to my dad and being like, “Dad, I saw this thing that said ‘vinegar is really good for cleaning stuff. It that true?’” And his response was, “Yeah, if you like the smell of vinegar.” 

LS

(laughs) 

MC

It was the most dad response you could get. 

I saw something else about an eviction diversion program at Miami Workers Center. Can you share what that is and how that works? 

LS

In 2022, about four years ago, we advocated at the county that a budget for this program be created. We wanted to see a codified right to counsel for tenants who are facing eviction to have the right to free legal representation so that they have a better chance of staying housed, as a strategy to slow the rate of evictions in Miami-Dade County and have that impact the rate in which prices were going up. It’s kind of like a slow the bleed strategy. 

And we realized there would be many challenges to enforcing having a codified right to counsel without  funding for pro bono lawyers who are willing to represent these tenants, even if tenants had those rights on paper. So we successfully got this program started, which wouldn’t have been possible without our legal partners in this work. It’s in the second or third year now where MWC has a canvassing team dedicated to canvassing tenants who are facing eviction.  Many times, our team is how families are finding out that they have five days to file a response to the court or they default on their eviction. 

That’s part of the work that we’re doing. We are also putting on monthly know your rights and legal clinics in each district in the county. 

Part of the challenge is continuing funding for this every single year. We have to go to the county and fight at this point. It’s not even, what we want to see is increased funding, but what we’re seeing is a fight just to keep it as it is, where it can’t even, the program can’t even expand. That’s part of the challenge where we’re at now. 

Last year, the Eviction Diversion Project reached over 11,000 families with information about their rights, and connected over 1,700 to the representation that they needed. Many people were able to file responses and stay in their homes. 

Some of our most committed members are those who have that lived experience of facing an eviction and fighting it. Some win and some don’t, but throughout the process they are seeing how MWC stands in solidarity with them and has their back, and they want to ensure that that doesn’t happen to anybody else, that evictions don’t happen to any of their other neighbors. 

MC

What you’ve shared about Miami Workers Center makes me think about this idea of the third space. I think it’s so interesting because we’re in this moment where companies and corporations and brands are working so hard to figure out how they can get people offline and to real life experiences, and moments and events and things to build their excitement and engagement and buy into their brand. 

I keep thinking about how that is what our communities do inherently, like what organizing is, is about creating that offline interaction and engagement for community. I think we are just in this moment, especially in this post-pandemic era where people are just craving a place to be and to be engaged in something bigger than themselves. It’s really beautiful to see groups all around the country and the world that are doing that kind of stuff. 

LS

Yeah, it’s our biggest strength: being human beings in a world that desperately wants to be everything but a human being.

MC

So you work at Miami Workers Center, and you’re also an artist, and this other thing that people call themselves, a cultural organizer. What is a cultural organizer? 

LS

I actually was just thinking about this the other day, ’cause I’m like, what is that? What is it that I do exactly?’ 

I would say it’s being part of efforts that are bigger, that are like, what is that phrase, greater than the sum of its parts. Where you understand that it’s not about the work that you do alone, but it’s about making connections. And so for me, what that looks like is being open to connecting with new people, people who I see are doing similar kinds of work or trying to, or doing work in an effort of making [it] progressive. 

I have cultural worker friends who are in cumbia bands and doing local shows. I have friends who are sculpture artists who do poetry, and who are more in the academic field who are archivists and researchers. So it’s about getting to know all these different kinds of people and what they care about, and then being part of the organizing and using that as a vehicle in which these can come together in some way or another, even if it’s not part of a formal project. 

Cultural organizing can look like an assembly that was produced in collaboration with a grassroots organization, with a campaign, a clear call to action, and had theater and song and dance and art. It can also look like the long-term work of building relationships with people locally and trying to align on some shared vision. 

MC

It feels like there’s some similarity to when I was on the fundraising team at CJA for a while, and during that time we were grappling with the idea of calling ourselves resource mobilizers. It was a way to say that this is different from the mainstream approach to fundraising. It was kind of this reclamation, or just creating something of our own. 

LS

Yeah. And, where I would fear that the term cultural organizing doesn’t go is just seeing culture alone as a vehicle for change. When the reality is that you need culture and organizational structure and shifting of labor conditions, you know, to make systemic change. I think the smartest cultural organizing happens before we can get to the place where tenants are willing to form an organizing team and organize their neighbors. 

Food is the best way to get people to know each other. You gotta start with the barbecues, the cookouts, the movie nights, like that is cultural organizing at its best when it’s infused with the organizing strategy and not seen as an afterthought. 

MC

Speaking of food, you created a really beautiful food sovereignty poster a while ago. What was your process to actually make that poster? 

LS

My process began before the Creative Wildfire fellowship came about. I had been part of working with an organization, another local worker center called WeCount!, who organizes with day laborers, agricultural workers, domestic workers, construction workers. For many years I had been making campaign posters with them, doing graphics with them. And so through that experience, I got to know more about the struggle of agricultural workers who are trying to organize to change the industry. When I got the opportunity to collaborate with CJA and the Farm Workers Association of Florida on this and got to hear the stories that they shared, I wanted to paint the picture of both visualizing a transition with snapshots of what we are seeing in the world. 

You’ll see, I think it was in the bottom left, kind of like a toxic environment where the soil is very toxic and not only toxic to the land, but also to the workers who are tending to the crops, the food, and then in the bottom right, it’s almost like a comic, starting from the bottom left to the right, and then kind of moving its way up through transformation. The intention was that you could read it as a comic in that way or just as a process, but then looking at it wholly there’s always something bad and something good happening at the same time. It doesn’t show that everything is all great and we’re gonna arrive at liberation and things are just gonna be amazing. There’s always going to be struggle ’cause that’s just part of life. And so the intention was centered around food which is why you have the fish and the animals that are from the Everglades, which is most near to where I’m based out of. But you see people in it as well. I really wanted to just kind of pay respects to the workers who tend to the lands to make our food possible. Also recognizing that there’s a lot of work to be done to make it better. 

MC

What is some art that has really moved you recently? 

LS

There’s an organization in North Carolina called Down Home. They just started a video storytelling series and I’m really excited to see it. It’s called the Front Porch. They have a substack and they just put out a teaser video. It seems like they’re going to show stories and profiles of different people in rural North Carolina. Storytelling projects like that are exciting to me right now. It reminds you that the people in the stories are human, real people, showing their lives.

MC

Thank you, Lizzie, for taking some time. It was really nice to chat and hear a little more about what you’re doing. 

The post Lizzie Suarez on how Miami is changing, the city’s first cleaning cooperative, and being a culture worker appeared first on Climate Justice Alliance.

For Immediate Release

May 20, 2026

 

Contact

Nina Erlich-Williams, nina@publicgoodpr.com

O: 510-336-9566, C: 415-577-1153

 

Plan identifies specific strategies for developing drought-proof water supplies in SoCal by 2045 that will generate significantly higher yields than projections for the Delta Conveyance Project

Bay-Delta Region and Los Angeles, Calif. – In an online press conference today, leaders from conservation groups and Tribes announced the release of a Water Renaissance Plan for California. The plan lays out a vision, including specific goals and metrics, for prioritizing local water resilience in California’s urban areas – especially in Southern California – to support a pivot away from the state’s overreliance on unreliable imported water. 

 

Among other findings, the plan identifies the opportunity to secure 1.8-2 million acre-feet of drought-proof water supplies in Southern California by 2045 through sustainable technologies like stormwater capture, wastewater recycling, conservation, and groundwater cleanup. The total cost for such investments would be approximately $44 billion. In comparison, the proposed Delta Conveyance Project is only projected to yield 0.4 million acre-feet of water annually at a likely cost upwards of $60 billion.

 

“Southern California water agencies are already turning toward projects that can provide reliable local water,” said Bruce Reznik, executive director of LA Waterkeeper. “These types of investments make our region more resilient. We should direct ratepayer and taxpayer dollars to securing water supplies that are available year in and year out, rain or shine.”

 

As shown in this fact sheet, the amount of water available for export from two of Southern California’s main sources of fresh water – the Bay-Delta and the Colorado River – is projected to drop by 23% and 29% respectively in the coming years, compared to available water in recent decades. The report argues that continuing to over-invest in infrastructure designed to pipe water over hundreds of miles is a risky strategy, especially as snowpack and rainfall patterns become less predictable due to climate change.

 

Water exporting regions are also feeling the strain of changing weather patterns. As has been widely reported, the Colorado River is at an all-time low since water exports began in the early 1900s. The Bay-Delta is on the verge of ecosystem collapse due to extensive water exports that support both Central Valley agriculture and urban uses in Southern California and Silicon Valley. In the Eastern Sierras, Mono Lake and Owens Lake are similarly struggling due to excessive exports to Los Angeles.

 

“Proposed projects like the Delta Tunnel would decimate ecosystems and communities throughout California,” added Restore the Delta executive director Barbara Barrigan-Parilla. “It’s past time to focus our limited dollars on water infrastructure investments that are sustainable for both urban and rural farming communities, respect Tribal water and land uses, and will allow keystone species like salmon to recover. We can create improved water supplies and restore the largest estuary on the West Coast.”

 

The Water Renaissance Plan includes eight priority recommendations:

 

·         Direct state agencies to end planning and advocacy for the Delta Tunnel and instead adopt and enforce science-based instream flow protections for the Bay-Delta and its Tributaries.

·         Consider pursuing an ambitious general obligation water bond that focuses on modern local water supplies and does not include wasteful or environmentally damaging spending.

·         Develop best management practices and regulatory standards to address harmful algal blooms.

·         Require the adoption of tribal beneficial uses so that tribal uses are recognized and protected in permitting decisions.

·         Direct state officials to ensure Colorado River diversions are appropriately reduced as part of a basin-wide plan to ensure long-term sustainability and protect the environment, tribes, and urban water users.

·         Create a framework for local businesses to fund green infrastructure for stormwater capture.

·         Remove the cap on large water recycling projects for receiving loans from the State Revolving Fund and allocate sufficient funds to the SRF to meaningfully support large-scale projects.

·         Reform Proposition 218 to allow for local water rate assistance programs and ensure aggressive conservation rates can be implemented.

 

The Plan also includes analysis and sources to support its vision. It was drafted jointly by the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the River,Golden State Salmon Association, LA Waterkeeper, Resource Renewal Institute, Restore the Delta, San Francisco Baykeeper, Sierra Club California, Winnemem Wintu Tribe, andYosemite Rivers Alliance. As of May 19, 2026, 18 additional groups have endorsed the plan. For a full list of endorsers and additional information about the Water Renaissance Plan, see www.cawaterrenaissance.org.

 

###

 

Written by Dave Taylor and Mike Shaughnessy 

It is a waste of time for us to be criticising Andy Burnham, we know his history and his faults. He has already reassured the banks that he will not frighten the horses and the electors of Makerfield that they were pretty shrewd in voting for Brexit. The old chestnut goes “A Blairite, a Brownite and a Corbynite walk into a pub, and the barman says, “Usual is it, Andy?” 

Reform is losing ground at the moment and the last two byelections where they expected to win they lost, first to Plaid and then to the Greens. A defeat in Makerfield would be a huge blow. In Gorton and Denton, George Galloway decided not to stand, saying “It was not in the interests of the working class”. Surely, there is room for Zack Polanski to say that it is not in the interest of anyone, except Farage’s multi- millionaire backers, for the Green Party to stand in Makerfield? 

That is certainly the case. Polanski has already indicated he would be able to work with Burnham. To imagine that Makerfield could be another Gorton and Denton style win for the Green Party would be delusional. 

Makerfield is not Gorton and Denton. Firstly, if Burnham had been the Labour candidate, they probably would have retained the seat. Secondly, that constituency is split between two Greater Manchester boroughs. Gorton is in Manchester itself, Denton is in Tameside. At the recent byelection, Gorton where two thirds of the voters live, the Green party came first by some margin, in Denton, Reform came first followed by Labour, with the Green vote just about holding up. 

As natives of Manchester, we know there is a political difference between Manchester and most of Greater Manchester. Another example was the EU referendum, where Manchester (along with Trafford and Stockport) voted to remain whilst the other seven boroughs in Greater Manchester voted to leave, including Wigan, where Makerfield is. 

In the recent local elections, Reform scored an impressive 50% of the vote, which suggests that if these voters are abandoning Labour, they are likely to move to voting for Reform. 

Burnham is more popular than his party at present, in Greater Manchester and elsewhere. He is probably the only politician that could beat Reform in Makerfield, with opinion polls showing him holding a small advantage over them.   

The Green party is riding high in the at present. A low vote or a lost deposit, quite possible in our view, could well slow the momentum of the last twelve months. Not standing would achieve a whole lot more respect and auger well for working with other progressive forces in future. Surely, stopping Reform winning the next General Election has to be high on our priorities? 

And what if Burnham was to lose by less than the Green Party vote? Perhaps unlikely but certainly scary. I guess that most us would be voting for Burnham if we had a vote in this byelection. That`s what tactical voting to defeat Farage means. 

Dave Taylor and Mike Shaughnessy

We are members of the Green party of England and Wales and Green Left supporters

This article The “Hitler question” should never justify war was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'YPdje40rReR0u8NZrledcQ',sig:'d49bMKZ3OJIwzIJyjRJ2S7qv4WhCYAmxWkj4ozZAKsY=',w:'594px',h:'466px',items:'1515017735',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

Proponents of war and militarization often invoke common memories of Hitler and World War II to argue that we are now in a similar moment. Whether it is with Saddam Hussein in 2003, al Qaeda during the “war on terrorism,” Iran’s Supreme Leader in 2017, or Putin since 2022, a classic trope is to compare enemy leaders to the Nazis. In the lead-up to the Iran War this February, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham likened Iran’s religious leaders to Hitler and argued for regime change by any means. 

It is only a matter of time before Hitler is invoked again to justify yet another war or yet more militarization. How can those who are uneasy with war and militarism prepare to counter such arguments?

The “Hitler question” — what would you do if faced with Nazi aggression? — has certainly long functioned as a rhetorical trump card against pacifism and nonviolence. It is usually posed as a trap. If pacifists concede violence might be necessary, their principles are revealed as hollow. If they reject violence even then, they are exposed as naive or morally indifferent. 

#newsletter-block_cab7c98a5eb7f14481080aa2a87caad1 { background: #ececec; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_cab7c98a5eb7f14481080aa2a87caad1 #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our Newsletter

We’ll send you a weekly email with the latest articles.

Look closer, however, and it turns out that this framing rests on shaky assumptions and questionable simplifications. Even on as serious a challenge as the “Hitler question,” pacifism and nonviolence offer far more serious and practical insights than usually given credit for. 

As I examine in greater depth in a recent academic journal article, there are 10 ways in which the conventional assumptions behind the “Hitler question” can be challenged. 

Resisting the Nazis 

On the specific historical context of the Nazi question, first, framing the question in 1939, with war underway or imminent, bypasses or ignores the decades of political choices, structural violence, and missed opportunities that made that crisis so acute. 

From the punitive settlement after World War I, to the nationalist backlash and wider repercussions of the 1929 economic collapse, to imperial rivalries and militarized politics across Europe, decisions were made and particular paths were chosen. Different choices might have prevented the rise of Nazism in the first place. The crisis by 1939 was not caused by pacifism, but by decades of violence and militarism that helped create the conditions in which Hitler thrived.

Second, even if one accepts that war ultimately contributed to defeating Nazi Germany, an honest account would include a more critical look at what violence did — and did not — achieve. Military force did not prevent Hitler’s rise, nor did it stop the early expansion of Nazi power. 

War also did not protect Europe’s Jews from genocide; in fact, the Holocaust escalated under the cover and brutality of wartime conditions. Nor was the Allied war effort primarily motivated by a desire to stop genocide. Strategic priorities focused on territorial and political competition, and opportunities to disrupt the machinery of mass murder were often not taken.

This complicates the popular narrative of World War II as a clear-cut moral triumph. The same states that defeated Hitler tolerated or ignored other atrocities before and after the war (Gaza providing a recent example). Moreover, the conflict itself involved massive civilian casualties, indiscriminate bombing and forms of collective punishment that blur the line between justice and destruction. War may have brought down the Nazi regime, but it did so at enormous human cost and without eradicating the underlying ideologies of fascism and militarism, which persist in various forms and have become particularly revitalized and threatening in recent years.

Third, violent resistance was not the only form of resistance that ultimately defeated the Nazis. Nonviolent resistance contributed, too. Across occupied Europe, ordinary people and institutions engaged in acts of civil defiance, including strikes, bureaucratic obstruction, clandestine publishing, education boycotts, and networks that hid and protected Jews. In countries like Denmark and Bulgaria, public solidarity helped save large numbers of Jewish lives. Even within Germany, protests such as the Rosenstrasse demonstration, where non-Jewish wives secured the release of their Jewish husbands, forced concessions from the regime. (Incidentally, examples of nonviolent resistance and defense can be found in the current Ukraine war, too.)

Previous Coverage

The dangerous assumption that violence keeps us safe

These efforts were rarely coordinated on a large scale, and they did not defeat Nazism on their own. But their contribution challenges the idea that nonviolence was absent or irrelevant. Such examples, however, were also largely spontaneous (as they have been in Ukraine since 2022). The populations that resisted nonviolently have not benefited from systematic training and investment in such methods. Yet, just as military success depends on training, resources and coordination, so too does effective nonviolent resistance.

Fourth, as we know from plenty of recent scholarship and hundreds of examples, nonviolence operates differently from violence. Rather than seeking to overpower an opponent physically, it aims to undermine the social and political foundations of their power. Authoritarian regimes — even brutal ones — depend on compliance, legitimacy and the participation of ordinary people. When those forms of support are withdrawn, the regime’s capacity to function erodes. Nonviolent resistance can also create what is often called a “backfire effect,” exposing the injustice of repression and turning it against the oppressor by mobilizing public opinion.

Even the Nazi regime was not immune to these dynamics. It paid attention to public sentiment and adjusted policies when backlash threatened stability. The visibility of violence mattered: After the widely condemned brutality of Kristallnacht, antisemitic policies were implemented more discreetly. Nazi authorities went out of their way to hide practical elements of the “final solution” from public view. Where Jewish communities were less isolated and enjoyed broader solidarity, such as in Denmark and Bulgaria, survival rates were higher. These examples suggest that public opinion and social ties were not irrelevant, even under totalitarian rule.

Fifth, World War II is often remembered as being against “the Germans,” as a total war pitting entire populations against each other, as if all Germans were equally guilty. This obscures the fact that many non-Nazi Germans were victims of Nazism, too — such as civilians, conscripts and dissidents. Military conflict tends to turn entire nations into enemies. War dehumanizes, reinforcing binary identities and legitimizing large-scale destruction (as the genocide in Gaza illustrates all too clearly). Pacifism and nonviolence, by contrast, insist on recognizing the humanity of all involved, even while resisting injustice.

Resisting war 

Beyond the specifics of the Nazi context, it is worth also interrogating some of the assumptions with which the “Hitler question” tends to be asked. Five challenges to conventional wisdom emerge here, too.

First, pacifism is often over-caricatured and misunderstood. For one, it is often assumed that pacifism is a single, absolutist doctrine that rejects all forms of violence under any circumstances. Yet pacifist thought is diverse. Some strands are principled, others pragmatic; some oppose all war, while others argue that specifically modern warfare — especially in the nuclear age — is too destructive to justify. Many pacifists engage deeply with questions of strategy, effectiveness and political responsibility.

Another misconception is that pacifism equates to passivity. To the contrary, nonviolent action often involves risk, disruption and courage. It can include strikes, civil disobedience, boycotts and other forms of active resistance that challenge power structures directly. Far from being passive, such actions often require significant organization and personal sacrifice.

Second, nonviolence is more effective than its detractors often seem to assume. Studies have found that nonviolent campaigns have historically been more successful than violent ones, even against authoritarian regimes, and that they tend to produce more democratic and stable outcomes. While these findings have attracted some debate and certainly do not guarantee success in every case, they undermine the assumption that violence is inherently more effective.

There is, admittedly, no clear historical example of a society successfully defending itself against a full-scale invasion using only nonviolent methods. However, cases can be found of civilian resistance to occupation and authoritarian rule, suggesting that nonviolent defense could function as an extension of these practices. The idea of “civilian-based defense” involves preparing entire populations to resist through non-cooperation, making occupation difficult or unsustainable. This approach has never been systematically implemented, making it difficult to evaluate — but its potential cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Third, the “constitutive” impact of war is also not to be neglected. Violence, even when effective, does not simply achieve objectives; it reshapes societies (as evident with those countries affected by the Ukraine war, and in Israel and Palestine). War strengthens militarized institutions, normalizes hierarchy and cultivates cultures that are more accepting of violence. It leaves deep psychological and social scars, and it often fuels future conflicts. The economic and political systems built to support war — arms industries, military alliances, security infrastructures — take on a life of their own.

This raises a different kind of question: not just whether violence can defeat a particular enemy, but what kind of world it creates in the process. If war fosters the very conditions — militarism, dehumanization, authoritarianism — that enable regimes like Nazi Germany, then relying on it as a solution may be self-defeating.

Fourth, any assumption that violence can be controlled is also questionable. War is often imagined as a precise instrument, but in practice it is chaotic and unpredictable. It escalates, generates unintended consequences and often exceeds the intentions of those who initiate it, as we’re seeing with the ongoing U.S. and Israeli war on Iran. Civilian casualties, environmental destruction and long-term instability are not anomalies but recurring features. Once unleashed, violence is difficult to contain.

#support-block_623210016f4253a4c14ba30be688d0fd { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

Waging Nonviolence depends on reader support. Make a donation today!

Donate

Fifth, it is worth reflecting on the cultural and political uses of the “Hitler question.” It is often invoked not only in historical debates but in contemporary conflicts, where enemy leaders are recurrently cast as yet “another Hitler” to justify yet another military intervention. This framing simplifies complex situations and encourages a moral narrative in which violence appears as the only responsible choice. It also reflects a particular perspective, rooted in Western experiences and dominant memories of World War II, that obscures other histories and viewpoints, such as those of conscientious objectors, dissidents, women, racial minorities or colonized people.

As a result, a romanticized vision of war as a moment of heroic and hypermasculine struggle against evil, where violence is regrettable but necessary, gets reproduced. This narrative overlooks the broader consequences of war and the voices of those who experience its costs most directly — civilians, marginalized communities and those outside the centers of power.

All this is not to say that nonviolence would certainly have stopped Hitler or that all wars are avoidable. What I do mean to say, however, is that the “Hitler question” is not as decisive an argument against pacifism and in favor of the next war as those who ask it often seem to think. By examining its assumptions and revisiting the historical record, the choice between violence and nonviolence emerges as more complex than the question tends to allow. Pacifism and nonviolence offer not a simplistic rejection of force, but a set of critical tools for thinking about power, resistance and the long-term consequences of political action.

In a world where calls for war continue to be justified by invoking existential threats and moral urgency, advocates of pacifism and nonviolence should not feel disarmed by the “Hitler question.” The challenge is not to provide easy answers, but to broaden the conversation — to consider alternatives, question assumptions and invite to take seriously the possibility that resisting violence does not always require more of it.

This article The “Hitler question” should never justify war was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed funding the Demand Side Grid Support program through this year before moving participants to a separate, utility-run framework. Clean energy groups call the proposal costly and counterproductive.

With a new Ebola outbreak announced in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) on May 15 and declared an international public health emergency just two days later, on top of the recent Andes hantavirus cruise ship outbreak, NNU is sounding the alarm on the Trump administration’s bungled response to emerging infectious diseases.

 

Shell’s premium V-Power fuel is back in the spotlight, promising cleaner engines, better protection, and “more” of almost everything. But for drivers with long memories, the phrase “Shell wonder fuel” comes with a faint smell of burnt valves, marketing hype, and very expensive déjà vu. DISCLAIMER

This article is opinion and satirical commentary based on cited public sources. It is not financial advice, consumer advice, engineering advice, or a recommendation to buy, avoid, invest in, or rely on any Shell product or security. Drivers should follow their vehicle manufacturer’s fuel recommendations and seek qualified mechanical advice where appropriate. Site wide disclaimer also applies.

PART ONE: FACT-BASED TABLOID DEEP DIVE THE RETURN OF THE WONDER FUEL WAGON

There are few things Big Oil enjoys more than selling fossil fuel as if it were a wellness product.

Shell V-Power is not merely petrol, we are invited to understand. It is a premium experience. A scientific elixir. A motorised spa treatment. Something your engine apparently deserves after a long week of commuting, congestion, and quietly funding quarterly distributions.

A recent ad-hoc-news article describes Shell V-Power as Shell’s premium gasoline brand, marketed to help clean and protect modern engines, and aimed at explaining what US drivers should expect from it. The article says V-Power is Shell’s “flagship premium gasoline brand” and notes that it is positioned around detergents, friction modifiers, premium octane, and engine-cleanliness claims.

Shell’s own US marketing is even more enthusiastic. The company says Shell V-Power® NiTRO+ Premium Gasoline “removes up to 100% of performance robbing deposits,” promises “more power” and “more performance,” and says the product contains six times the cleaning agents required by federal standards.

Naturally, the word “more” does a lot of heavy lifting here.

More performance.

More protection.

More cleaning.

More premium.

More money at the pump.

Less obvious certainty that every ordinary driver will actually notice a miraculous transformation between home, work, school run, supermarket, and the pothole collection formerly known as the public road.

WHAT SHELL SAYS V-POWER DOES

Shell says the new formulation of V-Power NiTRO+ has “a new molecule” designed to remove up to 100% of carbon deposits from fuel injectors in gasoline direct injection engines. It says the fuel provides protection against deposits, corrosion, wear, and friction, and that V-Power contains the highest concentration of its proprietary additive package.

Shell also says V-Power NiTRO+ is Top Tier certified and has been tested in laboratory procedures, bench engines, and vehicles, with “more than half a million equivalent miles of testing.”

So let us be fair: Shell is not simply printing “magic petrol” on a pump and hoping nobody asks what an injector is.

There is a technical basis for detergent additives. Deposits can affect engine performance. Premium fuel can matter where a manufacturer requires or recommends higher octane. Modern direct-injection engines can be sensitive to deposit build-up.

But the real-world question is not whether fuel additives exist.

The real-world question is whether Shell’s premium potion is worth the premium price for the average driver — especially if their car only requires regular fuel.

And that is where the glossy ad copy begins to sound less like engineering and more like a scented candle for the combustion chamber.

THE ORDINARY DRIVER’S QUESTION: DO I NEED THIS STUFF?

For some drivers, the answer may be yes.

If your car requires premium fuel, use premium fuel. The owner’s manual is not decorative literature. It is there because the engine was designed around certain requirements.

If your car is turbocharged, high-compression, performance-tuned, or explicitly recommends premium gasoline, Shell V-Power may fit the use case Shell is targeting.

But if your car only requires regular fuel, the argument becomes murkier.

The ad-hoc-news article notes that premium fuel use depends heavily on vehicle manufacturer guidance, and that fuel economy changes are often small and vehicle-dependent.

AAA research found that premium gasoline was typically 23% more expensive than regular gasoline in the period studied, and examined whether using premium in cars requiring regular fuel represented a good return on investment.

A widely reported summary of that AAA study said US drivers wasted more than $2.1 billion in a year by using premium-grade gasoline in vehicles designed to run on regular, with no tangible benefit in the tested categories.

So the practical rule remains brutally simple:

If your vehicle requires premium, buy premium.

If your vehicle recommends premium, it may help under some conditions.

If your vehicle only requires regular, premium fuel may mainly improve the mood of the company selling it.

SHELL’S LITTLE PROBLEM: HISTORY HAS A LONG MEMORY AND A BURNT SMELL

This is where the Royal Dutch Shell Group archive piece from 2015 becomes especially useful.

John Donovan’s article, “Shell V-Power NiTRO+ ignites memories of past Shell wonder fuel debacles,” recalled Shell’s 1986 launch of Formula Shell — another heavily promoted fuel dressed up in scientific glamour. The article quoted Shell’s own paid historian, Keetie Sluyterman, describing how Formula Shell was launched in Europe with “heavy advertising” and “scientific connotations.”

Then came the small snag.

According to the cited historical account, the launch initially boosted sales, but later it emerged that in a small number of cars the new gasoline caused inlet valves to burn. The account says damage occurred in Denmark, Norway, Malaysia, and the UK; Shell withdrew Formula Shell from several markets, including the UK, before reformulating and relaunching the product.

That is quite a plot twist.

Act One: “From today not all petrol is the same.”

Act Two: Correct. Some of it may burn your valves.

To be precise, the historic Formula Shell episode should not be treated as proof that modern V-Power is unsafe. That would be an unfair leap. Modern fuels, regulations, engines, testing regimes, and additive chemistry are different.

But it absolutely does justify scepticism toward Shell’s recurring talent for dressing fuel products in a white laboratory coat and sending them out under a shower of marketing confetti.

The lesson is not “V-Power equals Formula Shell.”

The lesson is: when Shell says it has a wonder fuel, check the small print before joining the hymn service.

THE MARKETING FORMULA: SCIENCE, SPEED, SPARKLE, SPEND

The fuel business has always loved mystique.

Octane numbers become personality traits.

Additives become secret sauces.

Laboratory terms become pump-side seduction.

The driver is nudged to imagine that using regular fuel is practically an act of cruelty toward the engine.

Shell’s current V-Power US page leans hard into this theatre, with repeated “more” language: more power, more performance, more protection. It also states that actual effects and benefits may vary by vehicle type, driving conditions, and driving style.

There, hidden beneath the bonnet of the sales pitch, sits the disclaimer goblin.

“May vary” is doing the sensible work that “more” forgot to do.

This does not mean Shell’s claims are automatically false. It means consumers should understand what is being claimed, under what conditions, and whether those conditions resemble their own driving life.

A carefully tested engine-cleanliness benefit is one thing.

A driver expecting their family hatchback to emerge from the Shell forecourt with the soul of a Le Mans prototype is quite another.

PREMIUM FUEL: USEFUL PRODUCT OR STATUS SYMBOL WITH A NOZZLE?

Premium fuel is not inherently a scam.

Higher octane fuel resists knocking. Some engines require it. Some engines can adjust timing and performance when higher octane is available. Some drivers may value detergent packages and additive claims.

But premium fuel is also a brilliant retail product because it sells aspiration at the precise moment the consumer is already holding a payment card.

The pump effectively whispers:

“You could buy the ordinary fuel. Or you could be the sort of person who cares.”

That is premiumisation in its purest form.

Shell is not just selling petrol. It is selling the idea that you are a more responsible, performance-minded, engine-loving motorist because you picked the expensive handle.

And for Shell, that is an attractive business.

Fuel retail is fiercely competitive. Differentiated premium products help defend margins, build brand loyalty, and keep customers inside the Shell ecosystem — especially when linked to apps, rewards schemes, and brand claims about superior protection.

In short: V-Power is not merely fuel technology. It is also a margin strategy with a racing helmet.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL ABSURDITY: CLEANER ENGINE, DIRTIER PLANET?

Here is the uncomfortable part.

Shell V-Power is marketed around cleanliness — cleaner injectors, fewer deposits, better protection.

But it remains a fossil-fuel product sold by one of the world’s largest oil and gas companies.

So we are invited to applaud a fuel for cleaning the inside of an engine while the broader business model remains tied to extracting, refining, transporting, and selling hydrocarbons.

It is the classic Shell paradox:

Look how clean this combustion chamber is. Please ignore the climate chamber.

To be clear, cleaner engine operation can matter. Fuel quality can affect emissions, efficiency, and engine performance.

But premium petrol should not be mistaken for climate virtue. It is still petrol. It is still burned. It still produces tailpipe CO₂. It still belongs to the carbon economy Shell is working very hard to keep profitable for as long as possible.

The product may be cleaner in a mechanical sense.

That does not make it clean in a planetary sense.

THE OLD SHELL TRICK: TURNING CONTROVERSY INTO CONFIDENCE

Shell’s genius has always been its ability to speak in two registers at once.

To consumers, it says: trust the science, protect your engine, choose better fuel.

To investors, it says: trust the cash flow, protect the dividend, choose disciplined capital.

To critics, it says: we are part of the transition.

To regulators, it says: everything is tested, certified, and very carefully footnoted.

The result is a corporate voice so smooth it could probably reduce friction in an engine itself.

But the V-Power story shows the same pattern visible across Shell’s wider public image: a highly engineered message wrapped around a product that deserves scrutiny.

A premium fuel may be legitimate.

A marketing miracle should be treated with caution.

And a company with Shell’s history should not be offended when people remember previous episodes in which technical confidence and advertising swagger aged badly.

THE FORMULA SHELL GHOST AT THE PUMP

The 1980s Formula Shell controversy remains relevant not because history repeats exactly, but because corporate habits often rhyme.

Then: a fuel launched with scientific glamour.

Now: a fuel sold with technical superiority language.

Then: a brand message suggesting not all petrol is the same.

Now: a brand message suggesting your engine deserves “more.”

Then: Shell discovered that fuel chemistry, engines, and real-world use can create unpleasant surprises.

Now: consumers are expected to trust that the laboratory, the legal department, and the marketing department are all aligned in perfect harmony.

Perhaps they are.

But the ghost of Formula Shell still hovers near the pump, whispering:

“Have we checked this properly, or are we just applauding the brochure?”

BOTTOM LINE FOR DRIVERS

The sensible position is neither panic nor blind loyalty.

Shell V-Power NiTRO+ may offer real benefits for some vehicles, particularly those designed for premium fuel or sensitive to deposits. Shell’s claims about detergent concentration, Top Tier certification, and testing should be taken seriously as product information.

But drivers should also take Shell’s marketing language seriously as marketing.

For many everyday vehicles that only require regular gasoline, premium fuel may not deliver enough real-world benefit to justify the extra cost. AAA’s research has long warned against assuming premium fuel automatically benefits cars designed for regular.

The best advice remains boring, which is why no advertising agency likes it:

Read the owner’s manual.

Follow the manufacturer’s fuel requirement.

Do not confuse premium branding with universal necessity.

And remember that “up to” is one of the most elastic phrases in modern commerce.

CONCLUSION: SAME SHELL, DIFFERENT NOZZLE

Shell V-Power may be a technically sophisticated premium fuel.

It may help some engines.

It may be a sensible choice for some drivers.

But it is also another chapter in Shell’s long-running romance with the “wonder fuel” narrative — a place where chemistry meets commerce, disclaimers meet desire, and the humble petrol pump is transformed into a miniature cathedral of corporate persuasion.

The old Formula Shell episode is not a conviction against modern V-Power.

But it is a warning against corporate amnesia.

Shell has been here before: big claims, big branding, big confidence.

Drivers should remember what Shell marketing prefers to forget:

Not every miracle at the pump is a miracle for the motorist.

Sometimes it is just premium petrol with a premium script.

And sometimes the cleanest thing in the whole transaction is the way the extra money disappears from your wallet.

PART TWO: SPOOF SHELL PR/SPIN SECTION Shell Miracle Fuel Statement, Possibly Written by a Chemist, a Marketer, and a Dividend Forecast

Shell is proud to offer drivers a premium fuel experience carefully engineered to deliver more of the things motorists like, including more performance language, more protection terminology, more molecules, and more reasons to download an app.

Our Shell V-Power® NiTRO+ Premium Gasoline is designed for today’s modern engines and tomorrow’s exciting consumer expectations, particularly the expectation that a petrol pump should sound like a Formula One laboratory with a loyalty programme.

We recognise that some drivers may wonder whether they need premium fuel. We encourage them to consult their owner’s manual, while also admiring the emotional maturity of any engine that knows it deserves more.

Shell rejects the suggestion that “wonder fuel” is an overused phrase. We prefer “advanced proprietary performance-enhancing mobility molecule platform,” which regrettably did not fit on the pump handle.

As for historical references to Formula Shell, we believe the past is important, but only in carefully curated corporate heritage videos featuring clean overalls, sunsets, and no burnt valves.

Forward-looking statement: actual miracles may vary by vehicle type, driving conditions, engine age, legal jurisdiction, marketing interpretation, and the willingness of the customer to pay extra.

PART THREE: SPOOF BOT-REACTION / COMMENT SECTION

@PumpSidePhilosopher: “Shell says my engine deserves more. My bank account says my engine can learn humility.”

@ValveBurner1986: “Formula Shell called. It says maybe don’t let the brochure drive the car.”

@PremiumNozzleEnjoyer: “I bought V-Power and my hatchback still refuses to become a Ferrari. Considering litigation against my imagination.”

@DepositGoblin: “Up to 100% is my favourite corporate phrase. I am up to 100% likely to be impressed.”

@ClimateChamber: “Great news: the engine is cleaner. The atmosphere has declined to comment.”

@OctaneOracle: “Use premium if your car needs premium. Revolutionary stuff. Expect a 90-page Shell white paper shortly.”

@MarketingMolecule: “I am proprietary, advanced, and available wherever margins need assistance.”

SUGGESTED IMAGE CONCEPT

A satirical editorial illustration set at a glowing Shell petrol station at night.

In the foreground, a giant golden Shell V-Power pump is labelled “MIRACLE MOLECULE PREMIUM” and is sucking money from a driver’s wallet while spraying glittering fuel into a normal family car.

Behind the car, a ghostly 1980s-style petrol pump labelled “FORMULA SHELL 1986” rises from the fumes, surrounded by small burnt engine valves and warning signs.

On one side, a smiling Shell marketing executive holds a clipboard reading “MORE POWER! MORE PERFORMANCE! MORE DISCLAIMERS!”

On the other side, a mechanic holds up an owner’s manual saying “READ THIS FIRST.”

In the background, the Shell logo glows over a smoky horizon, while a small caption reads:

“Not all petrol is the same. Neither are the consequences.”

Style: sharp tabloid cartoon, high contrast, dramatic lighting, satirical, non-photorealistic, no real people depicted.

SHELL V-POWER: THE PETROL PUMP MIRACLE JUICE THAT WANTS YOUR ENGINE — AND YOUR WALLET — TO FEEL SPECIAL was first posted on May 20, 2026 at 5:22 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

California’s surface water and sediment are often contaminated with PFAS pesticides rcoleman May 20, 2026

Pesticides that are part of the family of toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS contaminate surface water and sediment in agricultural areas across California, an EWG analysis finds.

PFAS pesticides were found in up to 50% of California surface water samples, and in about 45% to 55% of sediment samples. These chemicals – fungicides, herbicides and insecticides – do not just end up on produce that feeds the nation. These findings suggest pesticides could also be exposing millions of Californians to PFAS through water and soil. 

What’s worse, exposure may persist for generations, since PFAS never fully break down in the environment. 

To reduce water and soil contamination from PFAS pesticides, California should phase out their use, sale and manufacture for agricultural uses.

Potential health concerns

PFAS pesticides are those whose active ingredients meet the internationally recognized definition of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. These active ingredients have the carbon-fluorine bond characteristic of PFAS chemicals, which makes them highly persistent in the environment and resistant to complete breakdown.

EWG recently revealed over 2.5 million pounds of PFAS pesticides are applied on California farmland annually, and also found frequent detections of these chemicals on produce grown in the state.

Exposure to PFAS pesticides could harm the immune system. Yet EWG’s published research highlighted an important oversight gap: Review of studies of immune system toxicity – a key outcome observed in several studies of PFAS exposure – is routinely waived as part of PFAS pesticide approvals.

Many PFAS pesticides also transform in the environment into a highly persistent, short-chain form called trifluoroacetic acid, or TFA. Early research has linked TFA exposure with reproductive and developmental risks. There are also concerns about TFA’s ability to persist in the environment for an extremely long time.

We don’t know how long it takes for PFAS pesticides to degrade into TFA. It varies according to pesticide types and environmental conditions. 

In the absence of comprehensive monitoring for TFA and PFAS pesticide breakdown products, current exposure estimates don’t fully account for the range of how these chemicals can harm our environment and health.

EWG’s new analysis is a significant step forward in trying to capture the many ways we are exposed to PFAS.

Studying surface water

Our analysis of sampling results found multiple PFAS pesticides were detected in California surface water. 

To quantify the extent of PFAS pesticide contamination of California surface waters near agricultural areas, EWG compared four subsets of data. The number of PFAS pesticide samples for each dataset is denoted by n in the list below.

1. 2025 Surface Water Database, or SURF (n = 4,158): Surface Water Monitoring Studies 304, 301 and 321 with results spanning 2020-2023, from the California DPR, obtained from the 2025 DPR SURF Release:

Counties sampled: Butte, Colusa, Imperial, Merced, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Stanislaus, Sutter, Yolo.

Waterbody/watershed sampled: Alamo River, Butte Creek, Clarks Ditch-Colusa Basin Drain, Ingram Creek, Lower Logan Creek, New River, Salinas River, Santa Maria River, South Slough-Deadman Creek, Tembladero Slough, Town of Hilmar-San Joaquin River, Willow Creek.

2. 2026 Study 310 (n = 298): Summary data from DPR Study 310, published in a January 7, 2026, report, with pesticide monitoring data on near-agricultural areas for Northern California in 2024:

Counties sampled: Butte, Colusa, Merced, Stanislaus, Sutter, Yolo 

Waterbody/watershed sampled: Butte Creek, Clarks Ditch-Colusa Basin Drain, Ingram Creek, Lower Logan Creek, South Slough-Deadman Creek, Town of Hilmar-San Joaquin River, Willow Creek

3. 2026 Study 321 (n = 548): Summary data from DPR Study 321, published in a January 1, 2026, report, with pesticide monitoring data on near-agricultural areas for the Central Coast and Southern California in 2024:

Counties sampled: Imperial, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara 

Waterbody/watershed sampled: Alamo River, New River, Oso Flaco Creek, Salinas River, Santa Maria River, Tembladero Slough

4. USGS (n = 580): Data from Table S4 of Woodward et al. (2026), with 2024 pesticide sampling data collected from agricultural streams in California, conducted by the USGS:

Counties sampled: Butte, Merced, San Joaquin, Solano, Stanislaus, Sutter, Yolo

Waterbody/watershed sampled: Butte Creek, Colusa Basin Drainage Canal, Del Puerto Creek, French Camp Slough, Ingram Creek, Mustang Creek, Orestimba Creek, Reclamation Drain, Snake River, Sweeney Creek

Because the data underlying Study 310 and Study 321 for samples collected in 2024 were not available within the SURF database as of the publication of this article, EWG’s analysis utilized summary statistics from DPR within the preliminary reports published in early 2026.

Information on PFAS pesticide detection frequencies from these data sources is summarized in Table 1, below. Data for the 10 most frequently detected PFAS pesticides between 2020 and 2023 in California SURF data are shown.

Table 1. Multiple PFAS pesticides detected in California surface water. 

PFAS Pesticide Detection Frequency Detection frequency (%) in surface water

PFAS pesticide

Top 10 from SURF

SURF

(n=4,158)
2020-2023

Study 310

(n=298)
2024

Study 321

(n=548)
2024

USGS

(n=580)
2024

Bifenthrin45.830.431.615.0Oxyfluorfen41.0ND26.320.0Lambda-cyhalothrin26.536.8  Sulfoxaflor19.9ND2.1 Fludioxonil12.1ND20.4 Trifloxystrobin6.3ND12.2 Indoxacarb5.9ND13.65.0Trifluralin3.5ND30.0 Fipronil1.2NDND Benefin1.1   

Gray cells indicate no testing for corresponding PFAS pesticide. ND = not detected.

Detection frequencies differed by region and study design. For example, oxyfluorfen detections varied by 21% across the data. But all four studies in Table 1 found evidence of PFAS pesticide contamination of surface water near agricultural areas.

Similar detection frequencies for bifenthrin – about one in three samples – were observed in both study regions, showing widespread bifenthrin contamination of state surface waters.

Data for the PFAS pesticides oxyfluorfen and lambda-cyhalothrin also showed frequent detections in state agricultural waterways both in SURF data (range: 12.1% to 41%) and within the 2024 results in Study 321 (range: 20.4% to 36.8%). 

Some county-level patterns in PFAS pesticide detections were observed from SURF data. Between 2020 and 2023, pesticide monitoring of near-agricultural surface water showed higher overall detection frequencies in San Luis Obispo (mean detection frequency = 23%) and Monterey (22%) counties than the other eight counties covered. 

Bifenthrin was detected in all 15 samples from San Luis Obispo, and in 88% of samples from Stanislaus County. In Butte and Colusa counties, all 10 PFAS pesticides shown in Table 1 were detected in under 10% of samples. 

The number of PFAS pesticides detected in surface water by county varied, with 10 detected in Monterey County, compared to just one in each of Sutter and Merced counties.

Notably, data for Fresno and Kern counties, where PFAS pesticide applications are the highest in the state, were not reported in the agricultural surface water or sediment monitoring studies within SURF. This suggests a concerning gap in the state of California’s testing of PFAS in surface water. 

Assessing sediment

EWG’s analysis found that both PFAS pesticides that were tested for in California sediment were frequently detected.

SURF data were subsetted to the same three datasets on pesticide monitoring in agricultural areas, and summary data were extracted from the 2026 Study 310 and Study 321 reports. The USGS dataset did not report concentrations for sediment and was not included.

Altogether, sediment data were far sparser than surface water data, with a much smaller set of pesticides sampled. 

In the 2020-2023 subset of SURF data and in the 2026 Study 310 data, only seven pesticides were sampled in total, while eight were sampled in the 2026 Study 321 data. 

Across all three datasets, just two of the sampled chemicals – bifenthrin and lambda-cyhalothrin – were PFAS pesticides. 

Table 2. Bifenthrin and lambda-cyhalothrin were frequently detected in California sediment.* 

PFAS Pesticide Detection Frequency in Sediment Detection frequency in sediment (%)PFAS pesticide

SURF

(n=152)

2020-2023

Study 310 

(n=10)

2024

Study 321

(n=26)

2024

Bifenthrin56.620.025.0*Lambda-cyhalothrin47.420.030.0*

Number of PFAS pesticide samples denoted by n.

*Due to a testing error in the 2026 Study 321 results, no sediment data were available from the Imperial Valley, a major agricultural region in southeastern California. The report notes this lack of data "significantly impacted 2024 results" and resulted in a drop in the detection frequency for lambda-cyhalothrin in sediment, from 80% in 2023 to 30% in 2024.

Between 2020 and 2023, SURF data indicated both bifenthrin and lambda-cyhalothrin were more frequently detected than the other five non-PFAS pesticides.

The sediment analysis is far more limited due to smaller sample sizes, limited pesticide coverage and testing errors (see Table 2 footnote). 

Only two PFAS pesticides were tested for, despite several more being applied to crops, detected on produce and frequently found in nearby surface waters. 

These data gaps almost certainly lead to underestimated PFAS contamination in sediment. With more frequent and geographically diverse sampling, as well as consideration of a wider variety of chemicals, detections would likely rise. These limitations also hinder geographic comparisons of sediment.

Nevertheless, the findings in Table 2 indicate that, at minimum, bifenthrin and lambda-cyhalothrin have both contaminated sediment in areas near agricultural land in California. 

Need for more comprehensive monitoring

Our analysis looked at surface water and sediment test results from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, or DPR, and the U.S. Geological Survey.

Bifenthrin, a PFAS pesticide that may be linked to cancer, was detected in almost half of all surface water samples and in over half of the sediment samples between 2020 and 2023.

Overall sampling data are limited in size and scope, so PFAS contamination from pesticide use is likely more widespread than the data currently suggest. This report emphasizes the need for much more extensive environmental monitoring. 

Current test panels don’t sample for all PFAS pesticides or the chemical breakdown products that can form in the environment, so the full picture of contamination remains unclear. But EWG’s findings, based on current data only, highlight ample reason for concern.

Addressing PFAS pesticides

To eliminate the concerns over PFAS pesticides and their presence on produce, sediment and surface water, California should move to phase out the use of these chemicals on crops. Ending the use of PFAS pesticides would safeguard our food and water systems and prevent PFAS pesticide buildup in the environment.

Furthermore, current monitoring of both surface water and sediment looks at individual pesticides only, not the highly concerning PFAS byproducts that can form from their partial breakdown.

Areas of Focus Food & Water Water Farming & Agriculture Toxic Chemicals Pesticides PFAS Chemicals Regional Issues California Authors Varun Subramaniam, M.S. David Andrews, Ph.D. May 27, 2026

It’s been over half a year since Hurricane Melissa, the most powerful hurricane to ever hit Jamaica, tore a path of destruction through the island. Many migrant farmworker families remain homeless and a number of communities still don’t have electricity restored, relying on expensive generators and battery-operated devices for power. The agricultural areas of the island got hit the hardest, impacting access to fresh food and driving up grocery prices.

What Your Donation Will Support

100% of all contributions go directly to farmworker families’ immediate needs:

• Emergency food and clean water supplies
• Critical medications and medical supplies
• Temporary shelter and urgent roof repairs
• Flood recovery and debris removal
• Other immediate costs as needed

About This Effort

Migrant Workers Alliance for Change is providing direct support to Jamaican farm worker members impacted by the devastating storm. Many of these workers split their time between Canada and Jamaica as part of seasonal agricultural programs, and they’re facing this crisis both in Canada and now in Jamaica.

Your contribution goes directly to migrant workers and their families who need it most. No administrative fees, just direct relief.

How to Help

Donate Now

Suggested amounts:

• $100 – Provides emergency food supplies for one family
• $300 – Funds urgent roof repairs to prevent further damage
• $500 – Comprehensive support including food, clothing, medicine, and shelter repairs
• Other amount – Every dollar makes a difference

Why This Matters

These are the same workers who help feed Canada. When disaster strikes their communities, they deserve our support. The combination of destroyed infrastructure and disrupted income means families are struggling to meet basic needs.

Share this campaign: Help us reach more supporters by sharing on social media

The post Help Jamaican Farm Workers Recover from Devastating Hurricane first appeared on Migrant Workers Alliance for Change.

The post Help Jamaican Farm Workers Recover from Devastating Hurricane appeared first on Migrant Workers Alliance for Change.

Current and former Shell employees have publicly challenged the company’s climate strategy — raising the awkward question Shell would rather bury beneath a tanker-load of LNG: what happens if the fossil-fuel future it is betting on does not arrive? DISCLAIMER

This article is opinion and satirical commentary based on cited public sources. It is not financial advice, investment advice, or a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security. Readers should conduct their own research and seek professional advice where appropriate. Site wide disclaimer also applies.

PART ONE: FACT-BASED TABLOID DEEP DIVE THE CALL IS COMING FROM INSIDE THE REFINERY

There are bad days in corporate public relations, and then there is the very special sort of day when your own current and former employees publicly challenge your climate strategy at your AGM.

That, according to the NL Times, is what Shell faced on Tuesday, 19 May 2026, when a group of current and former Shell employees challenged the company’s climate strategy at its shareholder meeting in London.

Their warning was blunt enough to cut through the usual corporate fog: Shell’s continued focus on oil and liquefied natural gas may expose both the business and investors to serious long-term risks.

In other words: the call may now be coming from inside the refinery.

The challenge was linked to a shareholder resolution coordinated by Follow This, which asked Shell to disclose how it would create shareholder value if oil and gas demand declines.

Follow This said the 2026 resolutions at Shell and BP were co-filed by 23 institutional investors with €1.5 trillion in assets under management and that — for the first time — current and former Shell employees co-filed the Shell resolution.

That is not exactly a fringe protest by someone wearing a polar bear costume outside the sandwich shop.

It is a governance question wrapped in a climate question wrapped in a large flashing neon sign reading:

What happens if the fossil-fuel gravy train meets a demand cliff?

THE AGM: DEMOCRACY, BUT WITH A VERY LARGE OIL SLICK

Shell’s 2026 AGM took place in London on 19 May 2026.

The company’s own voting results show that Resolutions 1 to 22 passed, while Resolution 23 — the shareholder climate-risk resolution — failed.

Resolution 23 received:

470,824,659 votes in favour — 13.01%

against

3,148,423,871 votes against — 86.99%

Shell immediately treated this as shareholder endorsement.

Chief Executive Wael Sawan said:

“Shell’s shareholders continue to strongly back our strategy as we transform Shell into a better performing and more resilient business. We are making progress towards our financial and climate targets, providing the oil and gas the world needs today while helping to build the energy system of the future. We will apply discipline and focus as we continue to deliver more value with less emissions.”

Translated from Corporate Cathedral English: shareholders voted down the awkward question, so management declared the choir in perfect harmony.

But 13.01% support for a climate-risk resolution at a fossil-fuel giant is not nothing.

It is hundreds of millions of votes saying, in effect:

“Could we at least see the spreadsheet for the scenario where the world does not burn hydrocarbons forever?”

SHELL’S NEW FAVOURITE CLIMATE SOLUTION APPEARS TO BE… MORE LNG

Shell’s answer to climate pressure is increasingly LNG — liquefied natural gas — the fossil fuel that arrives wearing a slightly cleaner tie than coal and expects applause for not being the dirtiest guest in the room.

In its LNG response document, Shell says it has a “positive outlook for LNG over the long term” and describes LNG as central to its strategy.

The company says it wants to be “the leading integrated gas and LNG business in the world” and argues that LNG can play a role in energy security and the transition.

Shell also states:

“For all these reasons, Shell believes that supplying LNG will be the biggest contribution we will make to the energy transition over the next decade.”

There it is: the energy transition, Shell-style.

Not so much “less fossil fuel” as:

Different fossil fuel, but with PowerPoint gradients.

To be fair, Shell’s argument is not invented out of thin air. Gas can displace coal in some power systems. LNG can provide flexible supply. Energy security is a real issue.

But the controversy is about scale, lock-in, methane leakage, capital allocation, and whether Shell is positioning itself for a genuine transition or merely putting a lower-carbon label on a very large fossil-fuel expansion strategy.

THE OFFICIAL STRATEGY: NET ZERO IN THE WINDOW, HYDROCARBONS IN THE WAREHOUSE

Shell says its Energy Transition Strategy supports its target to become a net-zero emissions energy business by 2050.

It says meeting growing energy demand while tackling climate change is “an urgent challenge” and “a transformative opportunity.”

The difficulty, as ever, is the gap between slogan and steel.

Shell’s critics argue that the company’s capital discipline has increasingly meant discipline for low-carbon ventures and enthusiasm for oil and gas cash generation.

In 2024, Shell paused construction of its large Rotterdam biofuels plant, a project previously presented as part of its lower-carbon push.

By 2025, Shell was openly sharpening its focus on shareholder distributions, cost cutting, and higher-return businesses. Reporting at the time said Shell planned to cut spending, reduce low-carbon investment as a share of capital expenditure, raise shareholder payouts, and that CEO Wael Sawan’s pay package had increased after Shell’s renewed emphasis on oil and gas.

So the public message is “energy transition.”

The investor message appears rather more like:

Relax, the dividend cannon is still loaded.

FOLLOW THE MONEY: THE GIANT SHAREHOLDERS BEHIND THE CURTAIN

Shell is not some corner-shop oil concern run from a filing cabinet and a petrol-stained ledger.

Its shareholder base includes some of the largest institutional investors on Earth.

Recent ownership data compiled by TIKR listed Vanguard Group, BlackRock Institutional Trust, and Norges Bank Investment Management among Shell’s largest shareholders, with Vanguard shown at 186.8 million shares, BlackRock Institutional Trust at 179.5 million shares, and Norges Bank at 150.2 million shares.

That matters.

Because when Shell says shareholders back its strategy, the room is not just populated by individual investors clutching tea and biscuits.

It includes gigantic asset managers whose voting behaviour can help determine whether climate-risk resolutions become governance pressure or politely filed wallpaper.

Meanwhile, Net Zero Investor reported that a group of institutional investors — including West Yorkshire Pension Fund, Lothian Pension Fund, Ethos, PUBLICA, and Mercy Investment Services — urged other investors to support Resolution 23 at Shell’s 2026 AGM.

So there are really two investor stories here.

One is the big-vote story: Shell management won comfortably.

The other is the risk-story: a serious minority of investors, plus current and former employees, are increasingly unwilling to swallow the idea that fossil-fuel expansion and climate resilience are automatically the same thing.

THE COURT BACKDROP: SHELL WINS ONE ROUND, BUT THE COURTROOM SMOKE HAS NOT CLEARED

Shell’s climate strategy is not just being challenged at AGMs.

It has also been fought in court.

The Dutch climate case brought by Milieudefensie concerned whether Shell had a legal obligation to reduce the worldwide aggregate carbon emissions it reports across Scopes 1, 2 and 3 by at least net 45% by 2030, compared with 2019.

Shell notes that the District Court of The Hague imposed a “significant duty of effort” in 2021, but that the Court of Appeal dismissed Milieudefensie’s claim on 12 November 2024.

That appeal victory was significant for Shell.

But it did not magically turn climate risk into fairy dust.

In April 2026, Milieudefensie announced new climate litigation against Shell, keeping the legal pressure alive.

Shell may have won a courtroom battle.

It has not won the climate debate.

And it certainly has not won the physics.

THE AWKWARD TRUTH: EMPLOYEES RARELY GO PUBLIC UNLESS THE BOILER IS HISSING

The most striking feature of the 2026 challenge is not simply that Follow This filed another resolution.

That has happened before.

The striking feature is the involvement of current and former Shell employees.

Employees know the internal culture.

They know the slide decks, the buzzwords, the capital allocation debates, the executive mood music.

When insiders and alumni publicly attach themselves to a resolution questioning the resilience of Shell’s business model under declining oil and gas demand, that is not a minor HR issue.

It is a flare fired from inside the corporate perimeter.

And Shell’s answer — “the shareholders have spoken” — may be technically true but strategically complacent.

Shareholder majorities can be wrong.

Markets can misprice transition risk.

Boards can mistake today’s cash flow for tomorrow’s permission slip.

Ask any former empire.

The palace always looks strongest just before someone notices the foundations are damp.

THE SHELL PARADOX: CLIMATE LANGUAGE, FOSSIL-FUEL MUSCLE

Shell’s modern communications machine speaks fluent transition.

It talks of resilience, lower emissions, energy security, customer demand, and disciplined capital.

But the operational centre of gravity remains oil and gas, especially LNG.

That is the paradox at the heart of Shell in 2026: a company trying to look like a climate-aware energy transition leader while reassuring investors that the hydrocarbon banquet is not over.

The employees and former employees challenging Shell are not asking a mystical question.

They are asking a business question:

What if oil and gas demand falls faster than Shell wants?

What if regulators tighten?

What if clean technologies keep undercutting fossil demand?

What if LNG infrastructure built for decades becomes yesterday’s answer to tomorrow’s grid?

Shell’s board says its strategy is resilient.

Critics want the receipts.

And frankly, if a company is confident that its strategy survives declining fossil-fuel demand, disclosure should not be treated like a hostage negotiation.

CONCLUSION: THE SOUND OF POLITE REBELLION

The 2026 AGM did not overthrow Shell’s strategy.

Resolution 23 was defeated.

The board prevailed.

The machine kept humming.

But the optics are brutal.

Current and former Shell employees publicly challenging the climate strategy of one of the world’s most powerful oil and gas companies is not business as usual.

It is a warning label written by people who have seen the machinery from the inside.

Shell can point to the vote.

It can point to energy security.

It can point to LNG.

It can point to shareholder returns.

It can point to every glossy phrase in the corporate dictionary.

But the central question remains stubbornly alive:

Is Shell preparing for the energy transition, or merely trying to monetise the delay?

Because when even insiders start waving red flags, perhaps the problem is not the flags.

Perhaps it is the smoke.

PART TWO: SPOOF SHELL PR/SPIN SECTION Shell Internal Mood Statement, Possibly Drafted by a Committee of Polished Gas Pipelines

Shell welcomes robust dialogue from shareholders, employees, former employees, future employees, hypothetical employees, and any sentient beings willing to recognise the vital importance of hydrocarbons in delivering a lower-carbon future by continuing to sell hydrocarbons.

We are proud that our strategy remains focused on delivering more value with less emissions, more LNG with less awkwardness, and more confidence with less disclosure than some campaigners appear to desire.

At Shell, we believe the energy transition is best achieved through disciplined investment in profitable molecules, especially molecules capable of being liquefied, shipped, regasified, monetised, and described as “part of the solution” in investor presentations.

While a minority of shareholders supported Resolution 23, an overwhelming majority voted against it, demonstrating strong support for our existing approach of telling investors that everything is resilient because we have used the word “resilient” repeatedly.

We thank our current and former employees for their passion.

We also remind everyone that Shell has a proud tradition of listening carefully, engaging constructively, and then continuing with the strategy approved by the people holding the biggest voting cards.

Forward-looking statement: any resemblance between this satire and actual corporate language is purely coincidental, although admittedly not very surprising.

PART THREE: SPOOF BOT-REACTION / COMMENT SECTION

@DividendGoblin3000: “Climate risk? Sorry, I can’t hear you over the buybacks.”

@LNG_is_Love: “Shell says LNG is its biggest contribution to the energy transition. My biggest contribution to dieting is buying a slightly smaller cake.”

@FormerInsider47: “When the staff start challenging the climate strategy, maybe stop calling it stakeholder engagement and start calling it a smoke alarm.”

@BoardroomBarometer: “Resolution defeated. Physics abstained.”

@GreenwashDetector: “More value with less emissions sounds great until you notice the ‘more value’ is doing most of the work.”

@InstitutionalInvestorBot: “We support climate action, provided it does not interfere with quarterly distributions, executive confidence, or lunch.”

@PlanetaryAccountsDept: “Your transition invoice is overdue.”

IMAGE CONCEPT

A dramatic satirical editorial illustration of a Shell corporate AGM in London.

A giant golden LNG tanker sits in the centre of a luxury boardroom table, leaking black oil onto climate-risk reports.

On one side, polished executives applaud beneath a glowing Shell logo.

On the other side, current and former employees hold warning signs reading:

“Transition Risk”

“Show The Scenario”

“Smoke Alarm”

Outside the window, planet Earth is half-melting, half-covered in gas pipelines.

Style: sharp tabloid editorial illustration, cinematic lighting, high contrast, provocative, non-photorealistic, no real people depicted.

SHELL STAFF REVOLT: WHEN EVEN THE PEOPLE INSIDE THE OIL MACHINE START COUGHING AT THE FUMES was first posted on May 20, 2026 at 4:54 pm.
©2018 "Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at john@shellnews.net

Pairing geothermal with accelerated transmission development and stronger regional coordination can help the West access its gigawatt-scale geothermal potential, write Clean Air Task Force colleagues.

What is cult behavior? As we see from this reader’s question, it can frustrate and confound us when people we know embrace ideas that fly in the face of reality and reason. From NXIVM to Heaven’s Gate to extreme right-wing groups, these ideologies can appear frightening when their members can’t be reasoned with in common-sense conversation.

It’s a tough sociological topic. If you’ve watched friends or family members become indoctrinated by a cult, then you know it’s often shocking and traumatic. Let’s look at the dynamics of cults and demystify them so we can see (and talk to) individuals with compassion and patience.

Dr. Green,

Thank you for this interesting column. I have a question kind of around the antivax movement, but related to MAGA, MAHA, conspiracies, right-wing news, etc. What is happening, psychologically, when people form these closed information ecosystems? Is it a form of self-protection? An element of identity? Fear? I think if I understand it better, I won’t get so frustrated trying to talk with some of these people. Thanks!

Hello Friend,

I completely understand, having had some of my loved ones and best friends “go to the cult side.” Let’s look at the latest research and science on the dynamics of cults so we can understand how they begin and evolve and why people gravitate toward them.

Who Is Susceptible to Joining a Cult?

Vulnerable people join cults. That’s the simple answer, but it’s packed with a host of fascinating variables and personalities.

Vulnerable doesn’t always mean gullible; it can also mean intelligent and idealistic. Any one of us can be attracted to a cult if timing and circumstance conspire. Catalysts can include:

• Major life transitions like divorce, the death of a loved one, moving to a new city, job loss, becoming a refugee from your home country through war and political unrest, or experiencing a near-death experience — can knock us off course in life. All of us experience crossroads or pivot points in our lives that make us question the life we thought we knew and make us insecure about what the “meaning of life” is and where we fit in.
• Isolation and a loss of sense-of-self can become existential after we’ve achieved a goal and are wondering what’s next (or if we’re marginalized in our careers or by society). We start seeking a new sense of purpose, belonging, or higher power, and have weak, disintegrating, or nonexistent support networks that might otherwise protect us from the “love bombing” tactics of cults. Cults fill a void of loneliness with artificial family structures, often using interpersonal terms such as “brothers,” “sisters,” “fathers,” and other kinship identifiers.
• Upbringings filled with neglect, abuse, or the loss or absence of one or both parents can produce runaways or victims of broken, underfunded foster care systems who are attracted to cults partly for the family pronouns that offer to make them feel whole again.
• Some individuals with idealistic worldviews, often the result of growing up in sheltered settings, are overly trusting of strangers and naïve about basic social realities. They may ignore “red flags” or that “gut feeling” to be cautious when a charismatic, manipulative person or group presents themselves. This lack of street smarts and suspension of critical thinking make them easy targets for groups that seem loving and accepting.
• Studies indicate that cult members are often well-educated from middle-to-upper classes and have more resources to “find themselves.” With resources like money readily available, and lack of motivators to achieve, cults become a substitute for meaningful work and hard-earned achievements.

Anyone can be recruited by a cult under the right circumstances because these groups target basic human needs for love, safety, and belonging.

How Do Cults Start?

Cults usually start with a charismatic, narcissistic leader who exploits social or individual vulnerabilities to establish a high-control group, typically promising exclusive enlightenment, salvation, or utopian community.

The leader then cultivates a small group of devotees instructed to “recruit” new members. Recruiters focus on individuals experiencing loneliness, life transitions, etc. (see above). Cults develop during times of social, economic, or spiritual crisis, filling a void left by declining traditional structures. When an individual is recruited, the group gradually isolates them from friends and family, demanding increasing loyalty to the leader, who often becomes a source of absolute truth.

Ideological Transformation is a process by which old beliefs are replaced with a new, closed-system ideology. Aided by social networking technology, an “us versus them” mentality has increased the rate at which vulnerable people are exposed to undue influence in cults. This redefines one’s reality and self.

“Undue Influence does NOT erase the person’s old identity but rather creates a new identity to suppress the old one. After different types of manipulation, the creation of a new identity is done step-by-step by formal indoctrination sessions and informally by members, videos, games, movies, publications, and social/digital media. Behavior modification techniques are employed, such as rewards/punishments, thought-stopping, and control of environment (isolation or restriction of access to others). And then the new identify is reinforced and the old identify suppressed.”

                              – Steven A Hassan, Ph.D.  “Understanding Cults: The Basics” Psychology Today, June 5, 2021

How Can We Convince Someone to Leave a Cult?

In the 1970s-1990s, cult deprogramming involved often unlawful involuntary abduction and coercion; it had a low success rate due to its forceful and controversial techniques. This morphed into “exit counseling,” which involves education, building trust, and reality testing.

The Strategic Interactive Approach, developed by mental health expert Steven Hassan, is a non-coercive, empowering approach to helping people leave cults that encourages a positive, warm relationship between cult members and their families while helping to raise essential questions for cult members to consider. This recovery model helps participants identify and distinguish their cult identity from their authentic identity, working toward integrating parts of the authentic identity (that were coopted by the cult identity) into a whole mind.

Is Social Media Toxic?

Social media has made self-created social or navel-gazing bubbles intense and addictive. Worse, some of the current online gatherings of like-minded people have become noxious and malignant, creating cult-like echo-chambers that concentrate and distort negative, violent, and nihilistic emotions. This situation has motivated people with mental health problems to commit horrible crimes, murders, stalking, terrorism, and empowers emotions of general hate for society. Social media distorts reality and is destroying the universal social contract between humans. And it’s addictive, by design, for the profit of the social network titans on a global scale.

Social media can be a double-edged sword. Tech giants and their social media platforms have very little oversight by the government because of Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, a U.S. law protecting online platforms from liability for user-generated content and allowing them to moderate content in “good faith.” It provides immunity for hosting, promoting, or removing third-party content. Many experts argue Section 230 should be abolished and more federal oversight on social media should be enacted to prevent what has become a very toxic and harmful psychological poison in our global society.

How Can I Respond to Radical People, Such as MAGA Fans, Climate Deniers, or Anti-Vaxxers?

Understanding how people get into cults and cult-like movements is critical to help guide future conversations.

When we see that a person’s visions, values, and missions feel averse to what we understand of real science and even reality itself, we can try to socialize with them using a mix of boundaries, gently targeted questions (that may seem confrontational to them), and compassion. Focus on specific, shared values to find common ground to build rapport before addressing differences. Maintain calm and self-control over aggressiveness and don’t let them monopolize the conversation.

One approach is to use the Socratic Method, in lay terms: Instead of stating opposing facts, which are often dismissed as “fake news,” ask questions that encourage them to think through their own logic or critical thinking.

If you’re speaking with someone close to you who has changed, try to remember who they were before and guide the conversation with little reminders of how they used to be. Changing a viewpoint is a slow process. You may need to make some distance or disengage for a period of time to protect yourself from frustration and anger; these conversations can become confrontational with folks trying insistently to drive home their point of view. Don’t ratchet up your level of frustration in response — that never works.

If a conversation becomes unproductive, emotional, or disrespectful, you have the right to end it by simply walking away. Protect your own mental peace by accepting what you can’t control.

I hope these concepts and approaches are helpful.

Dr. Green

What are you struggling with as a dedicated environmentalist and global citizen? Let us know by sending your questions and success stories in the text box below.

All participants are anonymous. Even Dr. Green has no idea who you are.

Send Dr. Green your questions and stories below:

All questions are considered intended for publication; published questions will be kept anonymous. Individual replies are not possible.

See you next time!

Disclaimer: This column is not a replacement for therapy, and the advice given is educational in nature, not a replacement for professional psychological or psychiatric therapy. This is a peer-driven support effort by The Revelator to inform and build community with environmental and wildlife defenders.

If you are feeling critically depressed and suicidal, it’s time to immediately find professional help. Go to your closest emergency room or call the following numbers to get immediate help in your area:

SUICIDE HOTLINES

Worldwide: http://www.befrienders.org/support/

United Kingdom: http://www.samaritans.org

USA: https://988lifeline.org

1-800-273-TALK

Resources:

Factors related to susceptibility and recruitment by cults   National Institutes of Health. (Curtis, J M, and M J Curtis. “Factors related to susceptibility and recruitment by cults.” Psychological reports vol. 73,2 (1993): 451-60. doi:10.2466/pr0.1993.73.2.451).

The International Cultic Studies Association  ICSA is not an activist or advocacy group, but a unique nonprofit organization grounded in three pillars: advancing knowledge, fostering open dialogue, and supporting recovery from cultic and coercive influence.

The Center for Humane Technology   This nonprofit is dedicated to ensuring that today’s most consequential technologies, such as AI and social media, actually serve humanity. We bring clarity to how the tech ecosystem works in order to shift the incentives that drive it.

Film: “The Social Dilemma”

Film: “The Brainwashing of My Dad”

The Definitive Guide to Helping People Trapped in a Cult: Learn how to help friends and family being influenced by harmful cults.

The Freedom of Mind Resource Center   Founded by leading cult expert Dr. Steven Hassan, a former member of the notorious Moonies cult in the 1970s who experienced firsthand the devastating effects of undue influence and coercion. His escape from the Moonies and subsequent recovery process inspired him to dedicate his life to understanding and exposing the deceptive tactics used by cults and manipulative groups.

“Why do people join cults?” TedEd with Janja Lalich

“Why People Join Cults and Why They Stay” by Stephen Mather

Republish this article for free! Read our reprint policy. Previously in The Revelator:

Feeling Anxiety About Climate Change and Other Environmental Threats? These Five New Books Can Help

The post Dr. Green: Why Some People and Groups Become Resistant to Science appeared first on The Revelator.

The Turkish and Australian COP31 host governments and the International Renewable Energy Agency have called for a stronger global push to run vehicles, industry and buildings on electricity rather than fossil fuels, ahead of this year’s COP31 climate talks.

COP31 President Murat Kurum told the Copenhagen Climate Ministerial on Wednesday that governments should be “decarbonising the way we generate electricity, but also expanding electrification into every sphere of life”.

“We must make the technologies of the future accessible at scale – and we must ensure that no one is left behind,” he told the gathering of climate diplomats and ministers from around 40 countries in the Danish capital.

Kurum said that the percentage of final energy consumption which is met by electricity – the key metric of electrification, which is currently around 20% globally – should be increased “as much as we possibly can”.

The head of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Francesco La Camera, also addressed the Copenhagen gathering. While his comments to ministers were not public, IRENA released a statement ahead of the talks calling for a goal to increase electricity’s share of final energy consumption to 35% by 2035.

The two officials did not reference the war with Iran and the price hikes in oil and gas as a result of related supply disruptions, but UN and other leaders have used this as an argument in favour of transitioning away from planet-heating fossil fuels towards clean, domestically produced renewables.

35 by 35 goal

“The world must adapt to a new energy reality,” La Camera said in the IRENA statement. “Beyond the goals of tripling renewables and doubling energy efficiency [by 2030] lies the wider challenge of transforming entire energy systems and reducing fossil fuel use across supply and demand. Electrification and fossil fuel phase-out are inseparable and must advance together.”

He said electrification, which can be achieved through technologies like electric heat pumps, vehicles and cookers, will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, enhance energy security and bolster economic competitiveness.

A new “transitioning away from fossil fuels” roadmap released by IRENA says this 35% by 2035 electrification goal is vital if the world is to “remain” on a pathway to limit global warming to 1.5C. Electrification should reach at least 50% by 2050, it adds.

• May 20, 2026 Energy Electric car sales race ahead in SE Asia and Latin America amid oil supply crisis The energy squeeze caused by the Iran war is making the economics of electric cars more attractive, the International Energy Agency says Read more
• May 15, 2026 Clean Energy Frontier Ukraine can help Europe meet its battery material needs, experts say The country could contribute to the European Union’s efforts to reduce its dependence on China for graphite but the war poses major challenges Read more
• May 14, 2026 Finance UK halves Green Climate Fund contribution, as it spends more on security After promising £1.6 billion to the UN’s flagship climate fund in 2023, the UK government has now said it will only hand over half as much Read more

To enable this goal to be met, the amount of money invested in power grids each year should double from $0.5 trillion in 2025 to around $1 trillion each year until 2035. Significant investment in electricity storage and demand flexibility is also needed, the roadmap says.

Clémence Dubois, campaigns manager for green group 350.org, welcomed Kurum’s remarks but added that electrification and energy justice should be funded through large developed countries taxing the windfall profits of fossil fuel companies.

Also on Wednesday, Australian climate minister and COP31 President of Negotiations Chris Bowen met with the EU’s energy commissioner Dan Jørgensen.

An official summary of the meeting said they discussed electrification “as one of the most powerful policies available to reduce exposure to volatile fossil fuel markets and improve energy security”.

Collective goal or coalition?

The statement says they “agreed to work together on a new global initiative on electrification”. It is not yet clear whether the Turkish government, or the Australian government which is tasked with leading the COP31 negotiations, will attempt to get all countries to agree to an electrification goal at November’s climate summit in Antalya.

If so, such a goal could be collectively endorsed by all nations in a COP decision, as with the COP28 targets to triple renewables capacity and double the rate of growth in energy efficiency, both by 2030. Where there is narrower support, other goals have been voluntarily launched at COPs, backed by coalitions of countries, including pledges to boost nuclear energy, biofuels and grid investment.

A source with knowledge of Türkiye’s priorities confirmed that electrification is important to the COP31 host, alongside energy storage, energy security, clean cooking and resilient and clean energy systems.

This article was updated to include information about Chris Bowen’s meeting with Dan Jørgensen

The post Electrification emerges as COP31 priority appeared first on Climate Home News.

We handpick and explain the most important stories at the intersection of climate, land, food and nature over the past fortnight.

This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s fortnightly Cropped email newsletter.
Subscribe for free here.

Key developments Deforestation talks

COP30 ROADMAP: Brazil’s global roadmap away from deforestation will involve countries producing their own voluntary pathways to halt and reverse forest loss by 2030, according to a first outline covered by Climate Home News. At the COP30 climate talks in Belém last year, some 93 countries called for a deforestation “roadmap” to be part of the summit’s formal outcomes. Despite this, countries failed to agree to one – leading host nation Brazil to promise to bring forward a voluntary roadmap as a compromise. 

FOREST FORUM: Speaking at the UN Forum on Forests earlier this month, Juliano Assunção, an advisor to the COP30 presidency on deforestation, presented a first outline of the roadmap, said Climate Home News. According to the publication, Assunção said the roadmap “will not prescribe a single model”, but would instead invite countries to convert their pledges “into forest roadmaps grounded on regional and national diagnosis”. Elsewhere at the forum, Indonesia announced carbon-offsetting plans involving the restoration of 12m hectares of degraded land, said Reuters.

GOALS REPORT: Amid the talks, the UN published its latest assessment on achieving six global forest goals for 2017-30, concluding that “progress is evident, but insufficient”. Down to Earth reported that, according to the report, the world remains off track on two of the “key” targets: ending deforestation and eliminating extreme poverty among forest-dependent populations. Sustainability magazine reported that the goals set a target of increasing global forest area by 3% by 2030, but that, in reality, forest area has declined by more than 40m hectares since 2015.

Melanesian Ocean Summit

SEA SOLIDARITY: The leaders of Papua New Guinea, Fiji and Vanuatu signed a declaration to establish the Melanesian Ocean Corridor of Reserves, reported the Pacific Islands News Association. The corridor will “establish joint border governance, enforcement and marine science frameworks” across five Pacific nations and territories, said the outlet. Vanuatu’s prime minister, Jotham Napat, told the Melanesian Ocean Summit that the corridor “reminds us that our solidarity, not the legacy of colonial rule, determines our future”, according to Vanuatu’s Daily Post.

SEA SOVEREIGNTY: Part of the Melanesian corridor is a new marine protected area the size of the UK, announced by Papua New Guinea at the summit, said Oceanographic magazine. The new MPA will “prohibit all fishing within its boundaries”, reported the outlet. Meanwhile, Tuvalu’s Post Courier reported that the country is “currently developing its first-ever national-security policy, which will place maritime conservation and management at the absolute centre of the country’s strategic architecture”. Prime minister Feleti Teo stated: “The ocean is our sovereignty.” 

CONSIDER THE OCEAN: In a comment article in the journal npj Ocean Sustainability, Dr Carlos García-Soto from the Spanish National Research Council wrote that there is a “structural weakness” in UN climate processes. He noted that the final decision text from COP30 “omitted the ocean entirely”, despite the summit “deliver[ing] the strongest ocean-related initiatives ever presented at a UN climate conference”. García-Soto also outlined five key priorities for integrating ocean considerations into climate governance.

News and views

• CANADA OWN GOAL: The Canadian government has no plans to enshrine into law commitments meant to ensure the nation meets its international nature goals, despite hosting the pivotal COP15 biodiversity summit less than four years ago, said CBC News. 
• CREDIT CHANGE: Brazil’s national monetary council has postponed a regulation that would have blocked farms involved in deforestation from receiving rural credits, reported Folha de São Paulo. The change occurs “following pressure from agribusiness groups to relax the rules”, said the outlet, and means the requirement will now not take effect until January 2027.
• SAND CRISIS: A growing global appetite for sand is outstripping demand and threatening ecosystems, according to a new UN report covered by Reuters.
• LAOS DAMMED: A natural world heritage site in northern Laos is being put at risk by a $3.5bn dam project, reported Nikkei Asia.
• RAPID RESPONSE: The European Commission released its fertiliser action plan to “provide rapid support to farmers…and prevent rising food prices” amid the conflict in the Middle East, said Agenzia Nova. 
• MARSH REVIVAL: Rising water levels are “beginning to revive” southern Iraq’s Cibayish marshes following a years-long drought and “drawing buffalo herders and fishermen back to areas once abandoned”, said Reuters. The country’s water ministry was able to “release growing volumes” of water from reservoirs following heavy winter rains, added the newswire.

Spotlight Returning pet parrots to the wild

This week, Carbon Brief visits a conservation project working to return former pet parrots to the wild in Colombia.

Beautiful feathers. The playfulness and intellect of a small child. On occasion, the ability to partake in some pleasant conversation.

Parrots have captured the attention of humans for centuries. But their unique qualities have also contributed to their decline in the wild.

Some 16m parrots were moved across borders to be sold as pets over 1975-2016, according to one study, making them the most internationally traded bird in the world. 

In Colombia, the world’s most biodiverse country by area, the introduction of tougher laws in 2016 means keeping a wild animal as a pet is now viewed as a “crime against the environment”, punishable with monetary fines.

These stricter rules led to greater numbers of wild parrots being seized by the police and more people giving up their birds voluntarily.

But this clampdown created a new conundrum: What will the Colombian authorities do with their growing population of these, formerly pet, parrots?

A charity called Fundación Loros – “Parrot Foundation” in English – hopes to have the answer.

Parrot rehabilitation   

The foundation is based on 33 hectares of tropical dry forest in Bolívar – around a 40-minute car ride from the popular tourist city of Cartagena on Colombia’s Caribbean coast. 

The deafening screeches of parrots when entering through the site’s gates were impossible to ignore.

Inside, foundation guide Corina walked Carbon Brief through the various stages of pet parrot rehabilitation.

Former pet parrots that are released directly into the wild are unlikely to survive. This is because they often lack the necessary skills, such as how to find food or stay away from predators, including monkeys and coatis.

Parrots arriving at the foundation follow a seven-stage process.

First, they are checked over by a vet and given a tag, so they can be continuously monitored.

Following this, they are kept in a large enclosure and slowly reintroduced to the types of food they might encounter in the wild, including wild fruits and nuts.

After this, they undergo “flight training” – many of the parrots will have been kept in a small cage and never learned how to travel long distances. This involves workers encouraging the birds to fly greater distances in exchange for rewards.

They also join other birds for “flock cohesion” lessons. In the wild, parrots are highly social animals who rely on their group to survive and raise chicks.

A scarlet macaw eats a small mango at its release site in Bolívar, Colombia. Credit: Daisy Dunne

Following these steps, parrots are taken deeper into the foundation’s forest reserve – away from loggers and poachers.

There, they spend some time in an enclosure getting acquainted with their new surroundings.

After this, the door to the cage is opened – allowing them to fly free, but return for shelter and food if they need. Eventually, the birds settle back into the wild.

Waiting list

In addition to their parrot rehabilitation programme, the charity built a series of nest boxes and installed them high in the tree canopy across the reserve.

Their continuous monitoring of the birds has shown that many of the former pets have started raising wild chicks.

The work is hugely rewarding, said Corina, but the charity currently has a waiting list that is “months long”, given the growing number of wild animals needing rehabilitation across Colombia.

Despite helping the authorities with their wild animal problem, the charity largely relies on private donations to continue, she said. The hope is to develop an eco-tourism model to make more revenue in the future, she added.

Watch, read, listen

CARBON CONSULTATIONS: The Diplomat explored whether local residents were properly consulted on a carbon-offsetting programme in Cambodia.

FISH FIGHTS: The Ghanaian Times examined the tensions surrounding marine conservation in the country and how it is unduly burdening small-scale fisherfolk.

DELTA WORK: Mongabay reported on how the world’s “great deltas” are sinking, leading to the loss of a “global food system”. 

LITHUANIA PEAT BOGS: The New York Times reported on Lithuanian efforts to restore peat bogs in order to “reinforce the border” and “lock away” carbon.

New science

• Coastal marshes are encroaching on uplands “nearly twice as fast” on agricultural land as they are on forestland, suggesting that agricultural practices are “accelerat[ing] the impacts of saltwater intrusion” | Nature Sustainability
• Fungi that cause diseases in plants will approximately double in abundance around the Antarctic Peninsula by 2100 under a moderate emissions scenario | Global Change Biology
• Conserving Ethiopia’s protected areas currently involves managing “trade-offs between nature and people” that are “central to whether global biodiversity commitments can be delivered” | Nature Ecology and Evolution

In the diary

• 20-22 May: Informal consultations of parties to the UN Fish Stocks Agreement | New York City
• 30 May-6 June: Meeting of the Global Environment Facility Assembly | Samarkand, Uzbekistan
• 31 May: Colombian presidential elections
• 8-18 June:Subsidiary body meetings of the UNFCCC | Bonn, Germany

Cropped is researched and written by Dr Giuliana Viglione, Aruna Chandrasekhar, Daisy Dunne and Orla Dwyer.  Please send tips and feedback to cropped@carbonbrief.org

The post Cropped 20 May 2026: Deforestation roadmap | Melanesian Ocean Summit | Returning pet parrots to the wild appeared first on Carbon Brief.

The grid operator urged states to develop rules to shield other ratepayers from data center-driven costs, but analysts said it remains unclear how a reliability auction’s costs could be allocated only to hyperscalers.

Toronto — KEVIN LOCKHART, director of the Buildings program at the Pembina Institute, and KARI HYDE, director of Customer Energy Solutions, made the following statement in response to the release of Power Smart 2.0, the largest conservation...

The U.S. power grid should have sufficient resources to meet typical summer demand, but risk is growing in the shoulder seasons, the North American Electric Reliability Corp. said Tuesday.

Earlier this year, I spent a week with researchers at the International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (icipe) at their headquarters in Kenya. icipe is an Africa-based research institution that uses insect science to address challenges related to food security, public health, agriculture, and the environment.

I’ve known icipe’s Director General, Abdou Tenkouano, since 2009, when I met him in Tanzania at the World Vegetable Center, and later in the 2010s when he worked with the West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development (CORAF) in Senegal. He is someone I deeply admire and respect, and it’s always an honor to learn from his work.

During my visit, I met dozens of researchers, farmers, and community members who are co-creating solutions to food insecurity, malaria, and poverty in Kenya and beyond. And I was lucky to document some of this work alongside Food Tank filmmaker Haven Worley. You can watch our icipe video here and stay tuned for more On the Ground with Dani Nierenberg articles.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

The post On the Ground with Dani Nierenberg: Learning from Researchers, Farmers, and Communities in Kenya appeared first on Food Tank.

What does a bat-killing fungus have to do with the municipal bond market?

More than you might think. And the link points to the possibility of harnessing investors’ pursuit of profits to help biodiversity.

“This isn’t about conserving bats for bats’ sake,” said Yale University economist Eli Fenichel. “It’s about conserving bats to help communities reduce the cost of borrowing money for all manner of things.”

Conservationists are constantly looking for ways to entice people to invest in protecting wildlife. While “it’s good for the planet” is a common argument, appeals to altruism often fail to unlock the money researchers say is needed. Proponents of biodiversity instead appeal to people’s self-interest, whether it’s touting the role biodiversity protections can play in preventing human diseases, capturing carbon, controlling pests or various other human-centered benefits.  

 But what if wildlife conservation efforts could tap directly into financial markets, without needing to create a novel investment tool like biodiversity credits? Bats’ appetite for crop-eating insects and the connection between local farm income and government bond prices illustrates how that might work, Fenichel and colleagues at Yale and the University of Tennessee argue in a recent paper in Science.

“This approach reframes biodiversity protection not just as the ‘right thing to do’ from the perspective of conserving nature, but as a strategic risk-management strategy with a positive return for local government and investors alike,” said lead author Anya Nakhmurina, a professor of accounting at Yale.

To understand how this might work, we need to take a brief (I promise) journey into the arcane world of municipal bonds. Buckle up. We’ll get back to saving bats in a few paragraphs.

When local governments in the U.S. need to pay for big projects such as new roads or a sewage treatment plant, they usually borrow money and promise to pay back the loans, with interest. Those loans come in the form of bonds, which governments such as counties sell to investors.

The government uses future tax revenues to repay the bonds along with whatever interest rate they promised in order to lure investors. The lower the interest rate, the cheaper it is for the government to take on debt. The higher it is, the more attractive it can be to investors.

A key variable driving the interest rate is how much risk investors see that the government might not have the money to pay off the bond and instead default on the loan. Think of it like the mortgage market for home buyers. If someone has shaky finances, a bank might only provide a loan with a higher interest rate.

 

.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl , .IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {height: auto;position: relative;}.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby:hover , .IRPP_ruby:visited , .IRPP_ruby:active {border:0!important;}.IRPP_ruby .clearfix:after {content: "";display: table;clear: both;}.IRPP_ruby {display: block;transition: background-color 250ms;webkit-transition: background-color 250ms;width: 100%;opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: #eaeaea;}.IRPP_ruby:active , .IRPP_ruby:hover {opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: inherit;}.IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl {background-position: center;background-size: cover;float: left;margin: 0;padding: 0;width: 31.59%;position: absolute;top: 0;bottom: 0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {float: right;width: 65.65%;padding:0;margin:0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text {display: table;height: 130px;left: 0;top: 0;padding:0;margin:0;padding-top: 20px;padding-bottom: 20px;}.IRPP_ruby .IRPP_ruby-content {display: table-cell;margin: 0;padding: 0 74px 0 0px;position: relative;vertical-align: middle;width: 100%;}.IRPP_ruby .ctaText {border-bottom: 0 solid #fff;color: #0099cc;font-size: 14px;font-weight: bold;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .postTitle {color: #000000;font-size: 16px;font-weight: 600;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .ctaButton {background: url(https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts-pro/assets/images/next-arrow.png)no-repeat;background-color: #afb4b6;background-position: center;display: inline-block;height: 100%;width: 54px;margin-left: 10px;position: absolute;bottom:0;right: 0;top: 0;}.IRPP_ruby:after {content: "";display: block;clear: both;}Recommended Reading:What does the decline of insect-eating bats have to do with infant mortality? More than you think.

 

So how does this come back to nocturnal flying mammals? Because it turns out that the fate of bats in the U.S. is linked to the financial fortunes of farms, which in turn affects local property tax revenues collected from those farms, which can influence interest rates for municipal bonds. It’s like the kid’s song about the old woman who swallowed a fly, then swallows a spider to catch the fly, in a cascading set of interlinked actions that eventually lead to her swallowing a horse. Only in this case, it’s a story of bats swallowing a whole lot of flies.     

Insect-eating bats are remarkably effective pest-control machines. The paper’s authors calculated that a single colony of 150 big brown bats could eat 600,000 cucumber beetles in a single year, translating into demolishing as many as 33 million larvae the beetles might have produced. Those larvae, known as rootworms, are a major pest for corn growers.

More pests mean less productive crops or more spending on pesticides. That can dent local tax collections which, for farmland, are pegged to farm revenue.

“Not managing bat populations is like letting roads become full of potholes,” said co-author Dale Manning, an economist at the University of Tennessee. “They’re part of the agricultural infrastructure, and when that gets degraded, the effects are felt broadly.”

This isn’t just hypothetical. The spread of the devastating fungus that causes the lethal white-nose syndrome in U.S. bats provided a kind of gruesome experiment, enabling the researchers to see links between bat health and local government health as the infection spread across the country.

First discovered in 2006 among bats hibernating in caves in upstate New York, the illness, caused by the fungus Pseudogymnoascus destructans, has now been found in 47 states and has killed millions of bats. Depending on the species, it can virtually wipe out a colony.

The damage showed up not just in bat caves but in county government coffers. When researchers compared counties’ financial condition before and after white nose syndrome arrived, they found a clear sign that a county’s tax revenue fell the longer the disease was around. Property tax revenue in infected rural counties fell by 16% per capita, compared with the average performance among rural counties. The effect also turned up in the interest rates for bonds, with fungus-affected counties facing higher interest rates. The link was particularly evident in places with a bigger variety in species of bats, probably because that increased the likelihood that some bats would be vulnerable to the disease.

While the disease creates a headache for bats, farmers and government officials, it could also create an opportunity for investors. That’s because if the damaged caused by the disease is diminished by conservation measures, such as protecting bat habitat, a bond issued by the local government would become less risky.

A savvy investor could, in theory, buy municipal bonds, then announce plans to help boost the local bat population. If the market thinks those plans will help bats and local tax revenues, the bonds suddenly seem less risky and more valuable.

The investor should be able to resell those bonds at a higher price and pocket the difference. Based on a hypothetical scenario, an investor could potentially buy a $1 million bonds and resell it for $1,013,855, the researchers calculated based on how the disease has affected bond values in the past.

“No one is going to become a billionaire with this strategy,” said Fenichel. “But if we can build these broader portfolios in the bond market, we can empower local communities to do things like finance conservation and even adapt to climate change.”

A similar strategy could work for species besides bats as well, assuming there’s a strong link to investment tools such as bonds.

But this all hinges on investors being able to finance things that are proven to counter the damage of white-nose syndrome. So far, there is little good news in that regard. Scientists are working on a vaccine, and there is some evidence that modifying caves to make them colder can help ward off the disease. But all of these remain in the experimental phase. Until one of them goes mainstream, bond investors are unlikely to be aiding in the campaign to rescue bats.

Nakhmurina, et. al. “The fiscal impact of biodiversity loss and a pathway for conservation finance.” Science. March 12, 2026.

Image: ©Anthropocene Magazine

This article is part of Food Tank’s primer series, “Food Tank Explains.” Each installment unpacks the ideas, innovations, and challenges shaping today’s food and agriculture systems, offering clear insights into complex topics. To explore more articles in the series, click here.

The farm bill is a package of legislation governing topics including U.S. agriculture, nutrition, and conservation policy. Renewed about every 5 years for the past century, the legislation provides lawmakers with periodic opportunities to address national food and farming issues.

Over time, the farm bill has steadily expanded to reflect shifting political, economic, and agricultural priorities. It has evolved from an act providing immediate economic relief into an omnibus compendium of laws shaping everything from food access and land management to rural economies and agricultural innovation.

The first farm bill, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, was prompted by a drop in crop prices following World War I and the Great Depression. The legislation was a part of the New Deal and sought to reduce surplus crops and raise farm income. Farmer support and agricultural price controls have been core functions of the 17 farm bills that followed.

After the 1933 farm bill, in an era that came to be known as the Dust Bowl, large areas of the U.S. faced severe, multi-year droughts that caused soil erosion, dust storms, and distress migration on scales not previously seen. To address the devastation, the 1938 farm bill included soil conservation measures, introducing programs that paid farmers to adopt practices aimed at reducing soil erosion and improving soil health.

Farm bills during the 1950s primarily focused on stabilizing the agricultural sector after years of war. World War II-era farm policy had offered farmers high-value fixed-rate loans to boost production levels and protect farmer income. After World War II and the Korean War, wartime demand fell and technological advances sharply increased agricultural output.

Despite rising supply levels, the government maintained many of its wartime loan policies. The result was massive agricultural surpluses. To stabilize supply and demand, the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 authorized the use of surplus crops for foreign aid, creating the program now known as Food for Peace.

In the 1960s, Great Society reforms leveraged U.S. agriculture to combat domestic hunger, linking food assistance programs with farmer subsidies. Mirroring this approach, the Agricultural and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 became the first farm bill to include a nutrition title and food assistance programs. Later legislation continued to modify farm bill nutrition programs, including changes to food stamp eligibility in the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977 and the program’s rebranding as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in 2008. All farm bills since have reauthorized funding for food assistance.

By including a nutrition title, the 1973 bill became the first omnibus farm bill. The subsequent farm bills covered a wider set of topics and involved a broader range of stakeholders in the negotiation process. The 1985 bill incorporated new conservation laws, protecting highly erodible land and wetlands. The 1990 bill included the Global Climate Change Prevention Act and the first forestry title.

The first energy title was enacted in the 2002 farm bill, which created programs to support the research, development, and adoption of bioenergy and renewable energy systems. The 2008 bill enacted the first horticulture title, laying the foundation for federal support of local food systems and specialty crops.

The most recent farm bill, the Agriculture Improvement Act of in December 2018, is structured across 12 titles including commodities, trade, nutrition, and energy. The law largely preserved the framework of the prior bill while expanding support for issues including conservation, organic agriculture, local and regional food systems, and new, socially disadvantaged, and veteran farmers and ranchers.

The 2018 farm bill expired in October 2023, but Congress has not finalized a replacement. “They typically are on an every five year timeline,” Kathleen Merrigan, Executive Director of the Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems at Arizona State University, tells Food Tank. “We’re very much overdue at this point.”

Negotiations have repeatedly stalled over politically contentious issues including SNAP funding, conservation spending, and farm subsidies. Instead, lawmakers have enacted three consecutive one-year extensions to keep some farm bill programs operating. Other programs have lost funding or legal authorization to operate.

After the 2024 election, lawmakers shifted portions of farm policy into the budget reconciliation process through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R.1). The legislation included historically deep cuts to SNAP and conservation programs, and major changes to farmer support programs like disaster assistance, crop insurance, and access to land and farm credit.

The next farm bill is expected to cover issues including SNAP, the H-2A program, pesticides, animal welfare for livestock, and commodity subsidies. It will have substantial implications for food assistance recipients at a time when food insecurity is rising, and for farmers, who are facing falling commodity prices and high input costs compounded by tariffs and war.

Before it can become law, the bill needs to pass both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate. The House recently passed the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, bringing the country one step closer to a new farm bill. The House’s bill removes a provision designed to shield pesticide manufacturers from health-related lawsuits tied to their products, which Merrigan describes as a victory.

But the organization Farm Aid, along with 300 other non-profit and farmers organizations, say the legislation fails to meet the moment or the needs of communities and farmers. Anti-hunger advocates had hoped the House would revisit changes to the SNAP seen in H.R.1, but those have remained in place. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that one in eight participants will lose access to some food relief as a result.

Veronica Mazariegos-Anastassiou, a young farmer at Brisa Ranch in California, tells Food Tank that she hopes the next farm bill will embrace approaches that connect environmental protections with agricultural policy. And according to Marion Nestle, author, nutritionist, and Professor Emerita at NYU, the current policy lacks an overarching framework centered on health and environmental protection, allowing the legislation to become a mess.

“There are voices missing from this farm bill,” Adrian Lipscombe, Founder of the 40 Acres Project, tells Food Tank. Lipscome explains that many of the people most affected by the bill, including immigrant workers and Black, Brown, and small-scale farmers, continue to be excluded from the conversation shaping the legislation.

The Senate expects to release its version of the bill in about a month.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Scott Goodwill

The post Food Tank Explains: The Farm Bill appeared first on Food Tank.